Amnesty International

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 June 2003 - 15:58
Where was A.I. when Saddam was gigging in Iraq? Where were all the successful proscecutions in the "World Court"?

There was no world court until last july, by which time it was already abundantly clear that any prosecution under the Rome Statute would be an exercise in futility.

[Rat Faced]

And as the USA arent playing re: The World Court, I find it amusing that an American has brought the subject up......




:-"

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+2 June 2003 - 13:17--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 2 June 2003 - 13:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@2 June 2003 - 08:58


The CNN article suffers from the expected and typical lack of specificity as regards actual violations.

Doesn&#39;t being detained for over a year with no charges being brought count? [/b][/quote]
As I recall, when the press was making the big to-do about the prisoners, their criticism of the procedures of detainment had to do with the "enemy combatant" classification, which, you are right, allowed for a pretty much open-ended period of detention. As the circumstances were, in a sense, "extra-legal", as in, bearing more toward military than civilian, the way was paved for this extraordinary (in the sense only of being "other than ordinary") detainment.

From all indications, Military detentions would be looked upon by civilian entities (the media, Amnesty International, et.al.) as being inherently harsh and unfair, however, from a military point-of-view, fairness is much less an issue than humaneness, and that case could not be sufficiently made.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@2 June 2003 - 13:52

There was no world court until last july, by which time it was already abundantly clear that any prosecution under the Rome Statute would be an exercise in futility.

Myfiles-

I fear I mis-spoke earlier; I think I meant "World Criminal Court"(?); Kofi Annan&#39;s baby?

Are we talking about the same thing?

Could you expand on your "futility" statement? Do you mean in the sense that the U.S. wouldn&#39;t cooperate/comply?

Sorry for all the questions; I seem to be having a "moment", here-

[myfiles3000]

I fear I mis-spoke earlier; I think I meant "World Criminal Court"(?); Kofi Annan&#39;s baby? Are we talking about the same thing?

Its the same thing. see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/112664.stm
and
http://www.un.org/law/icc/

officially, its called the rome statute of the international criminal court. the war crime prosecutions of rwanda and yugoslavia were done by tribunals, a temporary creature.

Could you expand on your "futility" statement? Do you mean in the sense that the U.S. wouldn&#39;t cooperate/comply?

partially non-participation of US in ICC, but more to the point the war.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@3 June 2003 - 06:59

I fear I mis-spoke earlier; I think I meant "World Criminal Court"(?); Kofi Annan&#39;s baby? Are we talking about the same thing?

Its the same thing. see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/112664.stm
and
http://www.un.org/law/icc/

officially, its called the rome statute of the international criminal court. the war crime prosecutions of rwanda and yugoslavia were done by tribunals, a temporary creature.

Could you expand on your "futility" statement? Do you mean in the sense that the U.S. wouldn&#39;t cooperate/comply?

partially non-participation of US in ICC, but more to the point the war.

Ah-

Thank you for the clarification.

[clocker]

It appears that in articles published today that the Inspector General of the US Justice Department isn&#39;t too thrilled with the actions of the FBI post 9/11 re: the round up/detention of suspected terrorists. Apparently, little effort was made to differentiate between "terrorists" and "foriegn nationals". 760 people were rounded up, none of whom were ever charged with criminal offenses. Most have been deported for immigration violations. I&#39;d have liked to post a link but the NY Times website was acting wonky, perhaps someone else can do it.
At any rate, I think that this may, in part, validate and confirm AI allegations. The source (our own Justice Dept.) can hardly be faulted for their "agenda" now , can it?

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

How ya doin&#39; today Cloker?
It sounds like your talking more about civil rights than human rights.
The Prisoners Of War(that&#39;s what they are)do not have constitutional rights.
I&#39;m not 100% shure about this but I think that the Geneva Convention allows these POW&#39;s to be held for the duration of the war.
Charges?
"We don&#39;t need no stinking charges"
They can friggin rot there as far as I&#39;m concerned.
As for the rounding up the usaul suspects all I have to say is We were stupid enough to give the goverment too much power after 911 and now we&#39;re going to see some abuses.
I&#39;m not naive about this.
Man Is a fallen creature thus everything he touches gets corrupted.
Everything&#33;

[clocker]

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@3 June 2003 - 21:23
How ya doin&#39; today Cloker?

I am well, thank you.
And yourself?

Love the new sig, btw.

What war are the prisoners being held in Guantanamo participants in?
The War on Terror?

I don&#39;t think that falls under the Geneva Convention.

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

I thought that the main bulk were either Al Qaieda,talaban and some special Iraqi&#39; POW&#39;s.

The sig is cool ain&#39;t it?
I can&#39;t take all the credit.
I found that dorothy pic in a deep Floyd search.
So I blotted out some writing that was on it and slapped it on there.
I hope I don&#39;t get in trouble for using all this internet floyd artwork.
I&#39;m not selling it or anything.
Using the Floyd artwork makes it look good with ease.
I&#39;m gonna change it every week or so.