Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners

[orange]

Originally posted by Frogger
Anything which does not incite breaches of the peace should not be covered. So, "blacks are dirty rotten scoundrels" should not be banned, in my opinion, but it is, by section 319(2)

oh ok, i get it now

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
The "Al-Qaeda prisoners" should probably be covered by clause 6.

What's clause 6?
edit: nevermind

[KrazyHorse]

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

Unless they were engaged in terrorist tactics on the battlefield around the time of capture, then they should be covered.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
Unless they were engaged in terrorist tactics on the battlefield around the time of capture, then they should be covered.

I don't see how clause 6 applies in this case given the fact that al Qaeda has taken it upon itself in the past to fight the Taleban's battles. They assassinated the leader of the NA just before 9/11 in fact.

[KrazyHorse]

And so? Not all members of Al Qaeda were party to it. Their belonging in an outside organization, some of whose members voided their status of POW by taking part in practices which contravened the laws of war does not affect their status. I was under the impression that most of them were undergoing training, not taking part in the civil war.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, most of them weren't fighting the war until the war came to them.

EDIT: which is why we need individual hearings, no? The US gov't had no right to give the tribunals (if they even took place) a blanket guide as to who was a POW and who was not. That negates the competence of the tribunal.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's all up to interpretation, Kitty, as it's not clear that 4:3 or 4:6 apply to the Taliban at all. If you aren't part of a uniformed army, your status is up in the air, subject to the interpretation of the more vague clauses by a court. The American courts decided the Taliban weren't POW's. Where's the violation of international law?

[KrazyHorse]

Which American courts? You still haven't told me where you read that each was getting an independent hearing.

And 4:3 applies pretty obviously to the bulk of the Taleban forces.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
And so?

It gives lie to the claim of spontaneity and proves that the organization had more than enough time to form themselves into regular armed units.

[Drake Tungsten]

Which American courts? You still haven't told me where you read that each was getting an independent hearing.

I can't remember. It's been months since this topic has been in the press. The last I knew, the prisoners were being brought before secret military tribunals.

And 4:3 applies pretty obviously to the bulk of the Taleban forces.

It depends how you define the term "regular armed forces". The Taliban were little more than an amalgam of different Pashtun tribal militias, which doesn't exactly fit my definition of a "regular armed force". It's certainly not a violation of international law if the US courts felt the same way.

[KrazyHorse]

Really? The war was over pretty quickly. You think they had time to order up uniforms?

They carried their arms openly and engaged in conventional warfare. They were not springing up behind the lines as partisans. Seems pretty obvious to me that unless, as you mentioned they were already engaged in fighting the NA before the NA started advancing that they're covered by section 6.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
We try to be nice to you, though. You literally don't bother. And people are starting to get to the point of wondering if we do need you or not...

Only the mentally deficient.

Take a look at imports and exports from Canada, then ask yourself why you even bother to wonder if we need them?

Without the US many of our industries would go bust. Something many people love to forget about.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Which American courts? You still haven't told me where you read that each was getting an independent hearing.

I can't remember. It's been months since this topic has been in the press. The last I knew, the prisoners were being brought before secret military tribunals.

The Bush admin declared itself who would be classified as what. Even if they got tribunals to determine certain facts about their situation, they were not given full competence to decide about each individual case. And in addition, their rights were violated before the determination was made as to their status. The convention requires that until their status is determined they are to be treated as POWs.

Quote:

And 4:3 applies pretty obviously to the bulk of the Taleban forces.

It depends how you define the term "regular armed forces". The Taliban were little more than an amalgam of different Pashtun tribal militias, which doesn't exactly fit my definition of a "regular armed force". It's certainly not a violation of international law if the US courts felt the same way.

It's as much of a regular armed force as Afghanistan was able to field. They engaged in conventional warfare while openly bearing arms, and most were more or less continuously engaged in fighting the NA. They weren't partisans or spies; they were a regular armed force employed by the de facto government of Afghanistan at the time. You and I both know that any argument you're going to give me on these guys is just a means to weasel out. The convention is fairly broad in terms of who it accepts as a POW.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Only the mentally deficient.

Take a look at imports and exports from Canada, then ask yourself why you even bother to wonder if we need them?

Without the US many of our industries would go bust. Something many people love to forget about.

Not at all. But their northern states "need us" in terms of trade too. I'm not suggesting we close our border, but unless the US tries to play blackmail that's not dependent on us being as buddy-buddy as we are. It's obvious that being good friends doesn't make them give a damn about trade concerns, so what's in it for us?

[Asher]

It's obvious that being good friends doesn't make them give a damn about trade concerns, so what's in it for us?

Trade benefits both, it's stupid for Bush to be a protectionist moron and it's stupid for us to ask questions like "What's in it for us?".

[Docfeelgood]

I find it diturbing how the word "WAR "is used so loosely.


If my memory is correct, no war has been declared.

[Drake Tungsten]

You and I both know that any argument you're going to give me on these guys is just a means to weasel out.

So legitimate legal questions are now "weaseling out"?

The convention is fairly broad in terms of who it accepts as a POW.

No it isn't. The 1949 Convention is actually rather restrictive, being based almost solely on a European model of war characterized by clearly uniformed state armies doing battle.

The 1977 protocols were introduced to broaden the definition of a POW, particularly in low-intensity conflicts like Afghanistan. The US hasn't joined these protocols, however, so their requirements have no bearing on this issue. America still works off the more restricitve 1949 standards.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Trade benefits both, it's stupid for Bush to be a protectionist moron and it's stupid for us to ask questions like "What's in it for us?".

Not "what's in it for us to have an open border to trade"; "what's in it for us to play friendly with the US on non-trade issues"? It hasn't gotten us anything; we don't get concessions....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

You and I both know that any argument you're going to give me on these guys is just a means to weasel out.

So legitimate legal questions are now "weaseling out"?

No, the questions you're trying to put are weaselling out. These aren't guerilla forces here; they openly wage war on a long term as part of a government not recognized by the US.

[Asher]

Not "what's in it for us to have an open border to trade"; "what's in it for us to play friendly with the US on non-trade issues"? It hasn't gotten us anything; we don't get concessions....

Because either way it doesn't matter. Nobody gives a damn about Canada.

If Canada protests, nothing happens. If Canada nods and goes along with it, nothing happens.

We come across as less whiney when Chretien's face isn't plastered across US News Networks crying in broken English about problems it has with the US.

In fact, that's probably bad for our tourism industry.

[KrazyHorse]

Hah. No American can understand what Chretien says anyway. And on occasion we are able to change things, Asher. We're often looked to by the smaller Western nations as being their voice...

[Asher]

And on occasion we are able to change things, Asher.

Like what? Landmines?

We're often looked to by the smaller Western nations as being their voice...

Like who?

[Drake Tungsten]

No, the questions you're trying to put are weaselling out.

I think you need to face facts. The Taliban are not clearly entitled to POW status under the Geneva Convention. They have more of a case than members of Al Qaeda (who have none), but their case is still not strong. It certainly wasn't a violation of international law for the US to deny Taliban fighters POW status.

[KrazyHorse]

It was for them not to give them a hearing in front of a competent body. Which a body given guidelines by the US gov't is not.

[Ben Kenobi]

"No American can understand what Chretien says anyway." -Frogger

Like Canadians do either

AH-
IMHO Ireland counts as a western country, yet they do not have abortion rights as part of their constitution. Mind you, Canada does not enshrine abortion rights either, though current public opinion allows abortion on demand.

Also, is abortion on demand seriously imperialled in the US? In the last major decision, of PP vs. Casey, Sandra Day O'Connor said that Americans have grown reliant upon abortion and that to change the law causes massive social unrest.

Sava-
Liberals tend to increase human rights, rather than decrease. This favours removal of abortion rights when the right to life extends to unborn as well as born. Besides, most of those young liberals will become conservatives.

"Liberals are born,
Conservatives are made."

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Frogger
It was for them not to give them a hearing in front of a competent body. Which a body given guidelines by the US gov't is not.

Oh, and by the way I also believe Canada was in violation of Article 12

"Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention."

[KrazyHorse]

We transferred, IIRC, 3 POWs to your tender care before satisfying ourselves that you would abide by the Convention, which you have not.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by GP
Very much hindsight. Sure, the right may have exaggerated the threat. But the left did not predict the fall. Very, very 20/20 hindsight. Read some stuff from the 70's. Heck even look at the 70's red liberation movements in Europe, etc. Different mood back than.

A french guy who's rather to the left (can't remember the name, need to look it up) predicted the fall of the Berlin wall within the next 25 years in 1977. He has a new book out about America in decline, should be an interesting read. Read Tocqueville many years ago, maybe I should read it again. I didn't quite get why many Americans see his writings as a simple glorification of their country.

Drake:

"The US hasn't joined these protocols, however, so their requirements have no bearing on this issue. America still works off the more restricitve 1949 standards."

Don't know your ratification standings, but most of this is customary international law anyway, and you are bound by it unless you can claim persistent objector status.

Ad abortion:

Oddly enough, to my knowledge the US is the only western country that has a constitutional right for women to have an abortion (created by the SC out of thin air). In other countries abortion was legalized by the legislature, and court challanges were about that being a violation of the right to life - ie the exact opposite of Roe v Wade.

Ad topic:

Most differences between Americans and other Westerners are really just gradual. Take gun control - I could get a firearm with varying degrees of hazzle, that should be comparable to the more restrictive states in the US.

What really sets the Yanks apart and highlights the differences is the american obsession with being nr 1 in everything, no matter how absurd a specific claim is. I still don't understand that obsession.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

It must be awful being top dog.

You'll never know.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Ad abortion:

Oddly enough, to my knowledge the US is the only western country that has a constitutional right for women to have an abortion (created by the SC out of thin air). In other countries abortion was legalized by the legislature, and court challanges were about that being a violation of the right to life - ie the exact opposite of Roe v Wade.

Exactly so.

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Ad topic:

Most differences between Americans and other Westerners are really just gradual. Take gun control - I could get a firearm with varying degrees of hazzle, that should be comparable to the more restrictive states in the US.

What really sets the Yanks apart and highlights the differences is the american obsession with being nr 1 in everything, no matter how absurd a specific claim is. I still don't understand that obsession.

So you are admitting that you can't match our obsessiveness? USA! USA! USA!, were the most obsessed nation in the West!