The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants - Page 9




View Poll Results :Are the Taliban Lawful or Unlawful Combatants?
Unlawful 6 37.50%
Lawful 10 62.50%
Neither Combatants or NonCombatants 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
July 29th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Don't know if i've replyed to this before.

Just a note, the human rights (regarding torture and such) still applies for terrorists whenever they are classed as prisoners of war or not, as of UN resolusion.
Not the GC though.
July 29th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Don't know if i've replyed to this before.

Just a note, the human rights (regarding torture and such) still applies for terrorists whenever they are classed as prisoners of war or not, as of UN resolusion.
Not the GC though.
Doesn't matter if it wasn't the GC, its still just as valid
July 30th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Don't know if i've replyed to this before.

Just a note, the human rights (regarding torture and such) still applies for terrorists whenever they are classed as prisoners of war or not, as of UN resolusion.
Not the GC though.
Doesn't matter if it wasn't the GC, its still just as valid
Uhm yeah it's just that me and other people don't attach too much importance to the so-called international law, you know.
--
Boots
July 30th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Don't know if i've replyed to this before.

Just a note, the human rights (regarding torture and such) still applies for terrorists whenever they are classed as prisoners of war or not, as of UN resolusion.
Not the GC though.
Doesn't matter if it wasn't the GC, its still just as valid
Uhm yeah it's just that me and other people don't attach too much importance to the so-called international law, you know.
Err okey?
And you're opinion just remove the law in a magic way just because you dont "attach too much importence to" it?

So if it was GC you would go all woppedi do over it?

Because its international law whichever of those two that agree on it.
July 30th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Don't know if i've replyed to this before.

Just a note, the human rights (regarding torture and such) still applies for terrorists whenever they are classed as prisoners of war or not, as of UN resolusion.
Not the GC though.
Doesn't matter if it wasn't the GC, its still just as valid
Uhm yeah it's just that me and other people don't attach too much importance to the so-called international law, you know.
Err okey?
And you're opinion just remove the law in a magic way just because you dont "attach too much importence to" it?

So if it was GC you would go all woppedi do over it?

Because its international law whichever of those two that agree on it.
All I know is that International Law is not binding, for the simple reason that it can't be enforced.
July 30th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Don't know if i've replyed to this before.

Just a note, the human rights (regarding torture and such) still applies for terrorists whenever they are classed as prisoners of war or not, as of UN resolusion.
Not the GC though.
Doesn't matter if it wasn't the GC, its still just as valid
Uhm yeah it's just that me and other people don't attach too much importance to the so-called international law, you know.
Err okey?
And you're opinion just remove the law in a magic way just because you dont "attach too much importence to" it?

So if it was GC you would go all woppedi do over it?

Because its international law whichever of those two that agree on it.
All I know is that International Law is not binding, for the simple reason that it can't be enforced.
Depends on what you mean with enforced. It can be enforced by diplomatic means and international bans, such as economic and trade sanctions. A country can't be procecuted in a court but induviduals that has direct connections to the crimes can be held accounteble for the charges, such as in ICC and by War Crimes Law etc.

Secondly, they are binding, but they as you say are usually not enforced. WCL is the only law that is binding for every country and every country has the right to implement it. The other laws such as ICJ is a bit more diplomatic and ICC (International Criminal Court) can be enforced in Hague.

The disputes are judged and ruled by 15 judges the 5 veto countries have permenent place.
July 30th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Don't know if i've replyed to this before.

Just a note, the human rights (regarding torture and such) still applies for terrorists whenever they are classed as prisoners of war or not, as of UN resolusion.
Not the GC though.
Doesn't matter if it wasn't the GC, its still just as valid
Uhm yeah it's just that me and other people don't attach too much importance to the so-called international law, you know.
I am just done with a 5-yr International and Diplomatic Sciences University Course, so I know what you're talking about.
I also know though that if I don't recognize a certain law I can't help but obey it nonetheless, or I see jail. If a State infringes a "law" on the int'l scene, it can get along with it all the same. Well yeah sanctions might scare you, but the US are not liable of such measures hence they can ignore it.

Err okey?
And you're opinion just remove the law in a magic way just because you dont "attach too much importence to" it?

So if it was GC you would go all woppedi do over it?

Because its international law whichever of those two that agree on it.
All I know is that International Law is not binding, for the simple reason that it can't be enforced.
Depends on what you mean with enforced. It can be enforced by diplomatic means and international bans, such as economic and trade sanctions. A country can't be procecuted in a court but induviduals that has direct connections to the crimes can be held accounteble for the charges, such as in ICC and by War Crimes Law etc.

Secondly, they are binding, but they as you say are usually not enforced. WCL is the only law that is binding for every country and every country has the right to implement it. The other laws such as ICJ is a bit more diplomatic and ICC (International Criminal Court) can be enforced in Hague.

The disputes are judged and ruled by 15 judges the 5 veto countries have permenent place.
Mmmh scary. If I kill someone I go to jail regardless of my recognizing my government. If the US wages war on another country well what happens?
July 31st, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
One more time.

UN Resolutions are not International Law.