Reid calls for Geneva Convention to be rewritten

[nino_savatte]

A quick etymology lesson

hysterical
1615, from L. hystericus "of the womb," from Gk. hysterikos "of the womb, suffering in the womb," from hystera "womb" (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Hysterics is 1727; hysteria, abstract noun, formed 1801.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=hysteria&searchmode=none

A sexist use of language if ever there was one.

 

[MatthewCuffe]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but could somebody deny L&L the oxygen of publicity? He seems to be espousing the ruthless war of terror our government has applied in Baghdad and Kabul. Gerry Adams! Gagging orders! ASBOs! Criminal Injustice Act! ID cards! Guantanamo! CCTV Nation! Belmarsh! Electronic tagging! DNA database! Fallujah airstrikes! Hooded tops!

The Take a Break Mum's Army (or, er, the journalist who made it up as they muched on their Nestle-sponsored Kitty Kats) are absolutely right. We do need more police powers, more coercion, more surveillance and above all more torture camps in the UK. We're just not tough enough on war crimes and the causes of war crimes.

TB=WAR CRIMINAL.

Farewell the Unbearable Lock and Light-ness of Being Such An Earnest Supporter Of A Terror State.

 

[Lock&Light]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but could somebody deny L&L the oxygen of publicity? He seems to be espousing the ruthless war of terror our government has applied in Baghdad and Kabul. Gerry Adams! Gagging orders! ASBOs! Criminal Injustice Act! ID cards! Guantanamo! CCTV Nation! Belmarsh! Electronic tagging! DNA database! Fallujah airstrikes! Hooded tops!

The Take a Break Mum's Army (or, er, the journalist who made it up as they muched on their Nestle-sponsored Kitty Kats) are absolutely right. We do need more police powers, more coercion, more surveillance and above all more torture camps in the UK. We're just not tough enough on war crimes and the causes of war crimes.

TB=WAR CRIMINAL.

Farewell the Unbearable Lock and Light-ness of Being Such An Earnest Supporter Of A Terror State.

Nonsense noted.

 

[MatthewCuffe]

Go back to your copy of Stuff.

Nuts! In the Zoo! For Him!

Ciao ciao ciao

 

[Kid_Eternity]

So in other words, Attack Droog is saying that leaders of international terrorist organisations like Usama Dusty Bin Laden should be in the Hague, just like Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.

Cool. A Nuremberg trial for both sides in this war on terror franchise would be a gas.

Attack Droog really is a chump. Not as much as ID card Big Ears Clerk, but still a chump.

What a bunch of plums this lot are.

1966!

Could I please have my Labour government and my ball back, sir?

It get’s better! To pull that off you’d need an International Criminal Court with actual power! So he’s calling for that despite the US opposition to it! Who knew he was such as dangerous radical!

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Can we please just not bother with L+L's wrecking tactics?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but could somebody deny L&L the oxygen of publicity? He seems to be espousing the ruthless war of terror our government has applied in Baghdad and Kabul. Gerry Adams! Gagging orders! ASBOs! Criminal Injustice Act! ID cards! Guantanamo! CCTV Nation! Belmarsh! Electronic tagging! DNA database! Fallujah airstrikes! Hooded tops!

The Take a Break Mum's Army (or, er, the journalist who made it up as they muched on their Nestle-sponsored Kitty Kats) are absolutely right. We do need more police powers, more coercion, more surveillance and above all more torture camps in the UK. We're just not tough enough on war crimes and the causes of war crimes.

TB=WAR CRIMINAL.

Farewell the Unbearable Lock and Light-ness of Being Such An Earnest Supporter Of A Terror State.

Just ignore him (via these boards options or personal restraint) don’t give him the attention!

 

[Haller]

It get’s better! To pull that off you’d need an International Criminal Court with actual power! So he’s calling for that despite the US opposition to it! Who knew he was such as dangerous radical!

My feeling is that this is pretty par for the course with New 'Labour'. They're so unused to thinking these days, that they do and say things that have consequences beyond their comprehension.

Blair's use of the House of Commons to get a vote on invading Iraq is the classic example. Constitutionally, there was no necessity for him so to do, but he's now made it virtually impossible for a Prime Minister to declare war without a parliamentary vote. The immediate effect was to give a spurious legitimacy to an illegal conflict, but in the longer term it will haunt bellicose bastards like him.

 

[nino_savatte]

My feeling is that this is pretty par for the course with New 'Labour'. They're so unused to thinking these days, that they do and say things that have consequences beyond their comprehension.
.

This the problem with a cabinet that is so devoid of intellectual talent; it's all about sound bites and management and nowt else.

 

[MatthewCuffe]

Joseph Haller - correct. Blair has managed to Catch22 all of society and so in the aftermath a profound change is possible. Charter88!

It's almost as if he is a thought experiment, pushing the British system to its limit (nuclear war) in order to stimulate us to the need to reform our system in a way more radical than at any time since the enfranchisement of women in 1918 or the Great Reform Acts of the 19th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22
http://www.charter88.org.uk/

 

[Kid_Eternity]

My feeling is that this is pretty par for the course with New 'Labour'. They're so unused to thinking these days, that they do and say things that have consequences beyond their comprehension.

Blair's use of the House of Commons to get a vote on invading Iraq is the classic example. Constitutionally, there was no necessity for him so to do, but he's now made it virtually impossible for a Prime Minister to declare war without a parliamentary vote. The immediate effect was to give a spurious legitimacy to an illegal conflict, but in the longer term it will haunt bellicose bastards like him.

Indeed. I often think it’s the cowboy nature of how the top level Neo Labourites work. They don’t like formal processes (such as minutes of meetings etc) and prefer opportunistic actionable agenda. Something I was reading recently made a good point about Blair that he believes in power and little else. Everything he and his ilk do is about (a) holding it, (b) denying others it and using it to achieve both (a) and (b).

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Good piece in todays Comment Is Free here:

Iran's leadership would be legally justified in launching pre-emptive military action against the United States to defend itself against an imminent US attack on its nuclear facilties.

Confidential advice proffered in an internal Tehran justice ministry memo? The rantings of a crazy Islamist blogger? No in both cases. The suggestion came in a speech by John Reid, the British defence secretary, delivered in London on Monday.

Mr Reid made no specific mention of Iran, of course. He was talking about the future defence of Britain and its allies against attack by "barbaric" terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. The defence secretary suggested that international law and the rules of war, mostly agreed in the mid-20th century, were out of date and needed to be reviewed. A reasonable concern, no doubt.

But Mr Reid appeared to fail to appreciate that "international" law, by definition, is universally applicable and supplies protections and redress for all - and not for just the self-styled "good guys". And this is where he got into difficulty.

 

[Joon]

On the World At One, he insisted that the reporting of his speech was entirely wrong, and that he never suggested the abandonment or amendment of the Geneva Convention. In a trunctuated interview, just about the only point he did get across was that leaders of non-state terrorist organizations should be subject to international courts, in the same way that leaders of states now are, for crimes against humanity.

Reid said in his speech, among other things:

"However international legislation has not seen the same degree of change (as has been seen "here at home"). So, I’m not sure we have yet given the same attention to the international framework in which we operate. The Geneva Conventions were created more than half a century ago, when the world was almost unrecognisable to today’s citizens."

I don't think we need to read between the lines to see that he is indeed calling for a rewriting of the Geneva Conventions.

And I doubt very much that the only point he had in mind when he made the speech was about the leaders of non-state terror groups being made subject to international courts. That might not be as controversial as this:

"… the Attorney General explained the current position under international law when he said: "International law …………does not authorise the use of force to mount a pre-emptive strike against a threat which is more remote….....military action must only be used as a last resort….the force must be proportionate.

"Difficult as it is, I think all of us here –………………need to consider these issues now rather than waiting for the next threat to come along".

So we need to "consider these issues". Then what - abandon them, change them?

And if he is denying that he wants the Geneva Convention to be abandoned or amended, WHAT was the point of his speech?


http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E442BBE1E9CEF3/

 

[Lock&Light]

Can we please just not bother with L+L's wrecking tactics?

You are aware, I hope, that ostriches don't actually stick their heads into the sand.

 

[Fruitloop]

are you still here?

 

[Lock&Light]

are you still here?

Not for long. I'm about to go out for a beer. Want to join me?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

And if he is denying that he wants the Geneva Convention to be abandoned or amended, WHAT was the point of his speech?


http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E442BBE1E9CEF3/

Indeed. The fact that he's "questioning" the Geneva conventions etc while not explicitly setting forth a replacement framework is telling. I reckon the implication is the US desires of free reign pre-emptive strike is what he (and they) want. By questioning the current framework they're trying to open up the "debate" in terms that suit them. It's laughable when he says:

I want to stress that the UN, and adherence to international law, remain at the heart of British foreign and defence policy. It is as much to strengthen these institutions and to ensure their continued relevance that I think we need to have this debate.

 

[teqniq]

I didn't know about this, but I'm not really very suprised.

Tbh I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that this country is being run by a bunch of crims.

 

[TAE]

On the World At One, he insisted that the reporting of his speech was entirely wrong, and that he never suggested the abandonment or amendment of the Geneva Convention. In a trunctuated interview, just about the only point he did get across was that leaders of non-state terrorist organizations should be subject to international courts, in the same way that leaders of states now are, for crimes against humanity.

In any case he was wrong in suggesting that the situation now is fundamentally different form 50 or 100 years ago. There were terrorists then, there are terrorists now. They tried to blow up the house of parliament several centuries ago.

 

[Lock&Light]

I didn't know about this, but I'm not really very suprised.

Be assured, when you do know about things, you will be even more surprised.

 

[nightbreed]

While the present bunch of cunts have used every trick in the book with the present war in Iraq. He does raise some valid points - just how do you deal with an enemy that doesn't 'follow the rules'?

Name any time in history when an 'enemy' has followed rules? War has no rules.
Since when has any army followed the Geneva convention?

 

[scott_forester]

Labours answer to everything is making or changing laws and not actually taking any action? Reid’s word would seem less disingenuous if the Government were straining at leash to deal with Sudan or Zimbabwe – both countries were genocide and wide spread politic repression are happening – but were being held back by international law. Labour’s only reaction to Mugabe seems to be moaning at the English Cricket team.

Basically they are a bunch of amoral cowards who need to grow a pair.

 

[dylanredefined]

Geneva probably does need updating .Just look at gutamno bay debacle ilegal
combatant rubbish. Even if they arent covered by geneva as a prisoner of war
(you have to meet certain conditions to be classed as a pow) dosent mean
you can do what you like to them. However you rewrite it wont let the USA declare the world a free fire zone ,but,Even if the US is guilty who is going too
drag them to court .

 

[ViolentPanda]

The second part of your sentence only proves that you are the equal of Reid as far nastiness and cuntishness goes.

I've had the dubious fortune to have met John Reid socially, and believe me (or not, I don't particularly care) his nastiness is enough to make a milksop kick his head in, let alone anyone with an ounce of passion.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you mean that Reid wouldn't kick in people's heads, then you are right.

With those words you've shown how little you know about this particular person.

 

[ZAMB]

Mr Reid also called for a review of the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of prisoners of war in the speech "Twenty-first Century Warfare, Twentieth Century Rules" at the Royal United Service Institute think-tank.

What's this about 20th century rules? It seems to me that Bush is going back a few centuries earlier and taking the example of the Mongols - except that even they didn't believe in torture. I am sickened that our government has sunk so low as to continue back him in this war - against the wishes of the UK people.

Like others, Genghis Khan's subjects saw themselves at the center of the universe, the greatest of people and favored by the gods. They justified Genghis Khan's success in warfare by claiming that he was the rightful master not only over the "peoples of the felt tent" but the entire world.

Sounds a bit like Bush, RY and other USA apologists, doesn't it??

The Mongols did not torture, mutilate or maim, but their enemies did. Captured Mongols were dragged through streets and killed for sport and to entertain city residents. The Mongols did not partake in the gruesome displays that European rulers often resorted to elicit fear and discourage potential enemies - none of the stretching, emasculating, belly cutting and hacking to pieces that, for example, was soon to happen to William Wallace at the hands of the English. The Mongols merely slaughtered, preferring to do so at a distance.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h11mon.htm

 

[nino_savatte]

I've had the dubious fortune to have met John Reid socially, and believe me (or not, I don't particularly care) his nastiness is enough to make a milksop kick his head in, let alone anyone with an ounce of passion.

Indeed and though I have never met him, his nastiness exudes from every pore of his body. You can see this when he's being interveiwed on telly. He is also one of those MPs who isn't aversed to using his own brand of physical persuasion towards his fellow MPs (i.e. those who don't follow the govenrment line).

 

[Kid_Eternity]

International law doesn't have to be dumped because of al-Qaeda

Geneva probably does need updating .Just look at gutamno bay debacle ilegal
combatant rubbish. Even if they arent covered by geneva as a prisoner of war
(you have to meet certain conditions to be classed as a pow) dosent mean
you can do what you like to them. However you rewrite it wont let the USA declare the world a free fire zone ,but,Even if the US is guilty who is going too
drag them to court .

It is quite true that al-Qaida hardly plays by Marquess of Queensberry rules. They do not, as article 4 of the third convention stipulates, wear a "fixed, distinctive sign recognisable from a distance"; they do not carry their arms openly, or conduct their operations "in accordance with the laws and customs of war". As we discovered last July, this enemy wears jeans and rucksacks and obeys no gentlemanly courtesies. Surely it makes no sense to pretend that Osama bin Laden's bombers can be treated like Steve McQueen and Dickie Attenborough in The Great Escape.

But this is to underestimate the scope of the Geneva conventions. I spoke yesterday to Professor Jeffrey Jowell, Britain's delegate to the Venice Commission, which advises the Council of Europe on matters of constitutional law. In 2003 the commission examined whether the Geneva conventions needed adapting for a post-9/11 world - and concluded that they did not. "They go much further than I had first thought," he told me. "They cover much more than meets the eye." They might have been written for a 1949 world, but the fine print allows for every eventuality - even for the likes of al-Qaida.

Indeed most experts in the field agree that the situation is, legally speaking, quite straightforward. Faced with terrorists, states can either class them as warriors, who would then be held as prisoners of war, with all the Geneva protections. Or they can decide they are criminals, to be treated by the normal process of law. Even the men picked up in Afghanistan, and now rotting in Guantánamo, could have been placed in either of these categories, rather than held to constitute a whole new category - "unlawful combatants" - and then duly plunged into a legal black hole.

Link

 

[teqniq]

Be assured, when you do know about things, you will be even more surprised.

What vacous nonsense is this? I was merely stating my own opinion whereas this seems to state nothing at all.

 

[TAE]

Perhaps the geneva convention does need updating, but it most certainly must not be scrapped or even weakened.

Link

What kind of "fixed, distinctive sign recognisable from a distance" do special forces in full camo wear? Or the stealth bombers at 40,000 ft that you never even see? How is a car bomb any different from a cruise missile?

Besides, as I understand it, the "fixed, distinctive sign recognisable from a distance" is inside an OR statement, not an AND statement.

 

[Joon]

Maybe Reid could "amend" the Geneva Convention to this - All is fair in love and war!