On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:25:55 GMT, Christian Williamson
verizon.net> wrote:

Not usually, no.

That is unprovable either way, but if it walks like a duck and quacks
like a duck then it's usually safe to warm up the hoy sin sauce.

Bollocks. Freedom of Speech was one of the first to go.

You need to take into account article II, because that's the usual
excuse for not following the Geneva Convention "Oh, but we're not at
war". Article II states in part:

"Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in
peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of
declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between
two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war
is not recognized by one of them."

Well, that covers that excuse. So the Convention *does* apply. Now,
onto your problem with Article III, which seems quite plain to me, but
here goes:

"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international
character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting
Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a
minimum, the following provisions: "

Well, going to a foreign country, "arresting" (ie kidnapping) foreign
nationals and taking them to Gitmo and assorted (ex-)secret prisons
around the globe certainly makes this of "an international character",
so I'm not sure any of the rest is relevant, but for the record it
says:

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including
members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, "

I'm guessing that this doesn't mean subjecting them to abuse,
religious and physical, shackling them and parading them in front of
the world's media. Continuing:

"without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or
faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this
end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; "

Oops. The "T" word. Also, cruel treatment. I am not aware of any
murder (as such, but I'm guessing the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
civilians don't count) but I wouldn't be surprised to find some of
that too. Continuing:

"(b) taking of hostages; "

Oops.

"(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and
degrading treatment; "

Oops again.

"(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court
affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as
indispensable by civilized peoples. "

I guess that means your military "tribunals" are out then. No
civilised people would use them against foreign nationals.

"(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An
impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of
the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict."

I understand the Red Cross has done just that. At least you got one
small part right.

"The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into
force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other
provisions of the present Convention."

I guess that means the rabid denial doesn't count.

"The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the
legal status of the Parties to the conflict."

So you can get your arses sued off when it's all over.

There. Article III all defined. Nice and easy.

And like any despotic third-world country, most of it you have broken.

"Leader of the free world" my arse.

Paul.