OT - Time for the UK to leave the EU?

We live here and see it every day. Come to N. Little Rock some time and I'll take you on a tour of its poorest neighborhoods so you can see it for yourself.

On this we agree wholeheartedly.

Of what, that democracy is superior to tyranny? Absolutely.

Being in the majority doesn't necessarily equate to being correct. As a matter of fact it's beginning to appear that the majority right here in the US has turned against Bush's Iraq policy. You may yet see your wish for a US defeat fulfilled...

Really? What penalties have been suffered by the former Coalition nations that have withdrawn their forces from Iraq?

You don't read much about US domestic politics, do you?

I don't like saying this, but you're right about the letter of the Geneva conventions: these people are not covered by them. However, what does that make them? They can't be soldiers of any kind (that would put them under the convention), so that leaves civilians (no other legal stati available). Therefore, these people have (presumably) committed all sorts of murder related crimes in (for sake of the argument, but mostly true) Afganistan. This is then clearly a matter for the Afgan civil authorities to handle. The US military have no jurisdiction over Afgan civil matters, not do they have the authority to arrest and deport people.

Trampling all over other countries' jurisdiction, and detaining their citizens over crimes not committed in the detaining country is about as illegal as it gets, even according to the US. In fact the US have made it very clear that they'll invade anyone who treats US citizens the way it is itself treating the various people captured in Afganistan.

The fact that Bush has declared these people outlaw does not automatically mean they are.

Rob

True, but it was their refusal to back Ho Chi Min against the French in the first place that brought Ho under the communist umbrella.

Agreed. Afganistan was a step in the right direction (backed by both France and The Netherlands), Iraq wasn't (but unfortunately, my government backed it anyway).

Rob

PS: before anyone starts digging into Dutch colonial history for some unsavoury fact, yes , we mucked up on several occasions as well.

I'll take your word for it that it looks as you describe. I hope you'll forgive me for needing more reason than this to come over to the US though, there's quite a lot of time and money involved is such an expedition.

Rob

It's true. Even a large percentage of "the poor" have cell phones. And the latest figures for home computers and internet access? Isn't it over

90% of the U.S. populace? It's been stated that the average "poor person" in the U.S. (as defined by government standards); has a higher standard of living than the average European.... *not* the average *poor* European, but the average European.

It's a lot like that television show "Survivor". That thing has never impressed me, at all....because, when you think about...even during their worst moments, these "contestants" are still better off than about 95% of the world's population....

Do you have a source for that figure?

As it stands, this is too undefined to discuss. Sources, please?

Please note that there is no such thing as an average European, on account of there being no such thing as a European of any kind (other than as a designation of the continent the person inhabits). Compare the average Pole, or rural Spaniard to the average Dane or Dutchman, and you'll come up with totally different critters.

Rob

There are tons of sources....however, most of them tend to be recent only to

2003. One source gives 75% of households in February 2003.

Here are a couple of specific numbers:

Broadband Total: 38,957,000 May 2003 Narrowband Total: 69,647,000 May 2003 (

)

That is well over 100 million households with internet access, two years ago. With a population of 280 million, and an average household size of over two people per household; and with home computers now being easily available at the cost of only one day's wages...and with the exponential boom in internet access over the past couple of years (especially broadband and wireless)...

And as for the cell phones? Spend some time in the average shopping center, or mall. The challenge is to find someone who does *not* carry a cellphone. Even the kids. Even those who seem to come from families who you might consider to be "poor".

(Using the official U.S. Census Bureau definition of "poor")

By and large, I'd say carrying a cell phone is an indication of some degree of material wealth. On the other hand, a friend of who had managed to get himself into financial trouble couldn't afford any other means of communication; a pre-paid cell phone (about $60 in those days) at least allowed others to contact him, even though he couldn't afford to initiate calls himself.

Last time I checked these chaps had a reputation for ideological zeolotry, and an ideology that can't accept poverty except in those cases where the poor can be clearly blamed for it. Not much of a reference, in my book.

$18500/year for a family doesn't, on the face of it, strike me as poor, but then, I have no idea what the costs of living are like in the US.

Rob

They may be labeled as "right wing" by those on the "far left....but in this report, they are using the official numbers, as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau. These figures simply back up what Al was saying: That even the majority of "the poor" have automobiles, air conditioning, color TV's, etc.

You have the appropriate reaction. But still, this is what qualifies as "poor". That is why the politics here is so mean-spirited. One of our major political parties constantly tries to take away as much money as possible, from those "evil rich", to give to "the poor". (even when it is our system, which this party seems to despise, that has enabled 75% of "the poor" to have air-conditioning, etc.). Despite what you hear on TV "sound bites" from these people...."poor people" are *not* "starving" here. No one goes without health care. Proper care is available to *everyone*. Paying for it, is a different matter (as we taxpayers finance most of it); but if someone *needs* some life-saving medical help...they get it.

Bingo!

"Rob van Riel" wrote

Although you may pre-disposed to disregard this source, it is in fact a US Government agency,the numbers are real, and it's readily available:

Cellular telephones (2003) - 158.7 mil, third in the world after entire EU and PRC. GE - 64.8 mil; FR - 41.7 mil; NE - 12.5 mil

Internet users (2002) - 206,000,000 (70% of pop), second in the world after entire EU (2004 data).

Per capita GDP - $40,100, second in the world after LX ($58,000). NE - $29,500; FR, GE - $28,700

"Poverty Line" for a single person under age 65 is $9,573. For a family of four with two children it is $18,660.

Suggest you read the following from the Census Bureau:

KL

"Rob van Riel" wrote

The Conventions do explicitly establish a term. "Unlawlful enemy combatants" is correct and descriptive. Under the US military's definition, violations of the Laws of War are war crimes and anyone who violates the Laws of War is a war criminal, so "war criminal" would also work.

The terms for Hague protected personnel is "belligerent" or "non-belligerent".

Your "therefore" does not follow logically or legally from the preceding text not the legal context. The crimes occurred when there was no extant civil jurisprudence, for one thing. Also, the Hague Convention of 1907 says that:

"Art. 8. Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State in whose power they are."

It is only logical to assume that unlawful combatants would be governed identically.

Article 5 of the 1949/1950 Geneva Convention states:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

This has been done and their status as unlawful combatants decided. Thus, they are essentially outside the protections of the HC and GPW altogether because they have chosen to violate the laws and conventions of war as established by the Hague Convention of 1907. However, the US has chosen to treat them in many ways like POWs. This fact does not make them POWs nor civil criminals.

At best, one could say that they should be governed by Section VI, Chapter III of the GPW. In that case, it simply means that they are subject to the same requirements as the members of the detaining power. BTW, the US military allows the death penalty.

If this is a "fact", please cite a source.

Correct. However, the fact that they chose to violate the Laws and Customs of War automatically does.

KL

A sign on the wall in the emergency room of the local hospital attests to the fact that no one will be denied treatment. And to illuminate yet another salient aspect of the health care issues facing US taxpayers today - the sign is repeated in Spanish. ;-) I expect that is the case in many US hospitals.

WmB

"Kurt Laughlin" wrote

The Conventions do NOT explicitly establish a term.

KL

Unlawful would work if interpreted as 'not covered by existing law'. The interpretation so far has been 'against existing law' (this is also what you apply here).

I am not familiar with the Hague conventions, so I'll accept this, for now.

Not being soldiers, these people are civilians, who have been shooting at other people. Logically, I stand by my reasoning. Given that law and logic have been known to conflict, I'm open to arguments to the contrary in that respect.

How convenient. If I can wreck a countries legal structure, its laws are automatically void? I doubt it.

From the moment of capture, yes.

That's quite a leap of the imagination. I strongly doubt the word of the detaining power alone would constitute a competent tribunal in any legal sense. Also, given that 'unlawful combatant' is a hollow phrase with no specific legal content, they have only been explicitly denied legal status, which is not quite the same thing.

I don't recall GPW depending on HC, but I'll check.

Again, I'd have to check.

So? They hardly have had the opportunity to do anything since their capture.

It would be a long and deep dig, but I could probably find you such a source. However, to jog your memory, the US administration has made it quite clear that, should any of its (former) personnel be brought before the war crimes tribunal in The Hague (in other words: detained by a foreign power for actions not committed on the soil of that power), it will retrieve them by force if necessary. Perhaps 'invade' is overstated, but military action is definitely on the books.

So, violating the law makes you an outlaw. Interesting, I thought that made you a criminal. Not quite the same thing. Always assuming of course that the law in questing even applied at the time and place the actions occurred.

Rob