UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[The East Marches]

And I am telling you that the point is correct; what, or who, is going to stop us from executing these people?
It is a widely held sentiment that ISIL does not clarify as an organisation, and that its fighters are not normal soldiers. Thus, they should not be held responsible in the light of the Geneva Convention, or other international agreements regarding surrender.

We'll get away with it=/=international law does not apply. Your original claim, that the law only applies to international conflicts, was wrong.

What if you guys simply withdraw and stop caring like we did?

[Lamadia 2016]

And I am telling you that the point is correct; what, or who, is going to stop us from executing these people?
It is a widely held sentiment that ISIL does not clarify as an organisation, and that its fighters are not normal soldiers. Thus, they should not be held responsible in the light of the Geneva Convention, or other international agreements regarding surrender.

This is what Bush argued, and people in charge of prosecuting violaters of the geneva convention accepted through inaction.

That the conventions don't apply to unlawful combatants, nowhere are they mentioned.

Only civilians and lawful combatants.

This. Exactly this.
It is accepted that ISIL fighters are not lawful combatants- in other words, are not recognised as legally adhering soldiers, militia, or civilians. These agreements do not apply to them.

[Salandriagado]

This is what Bush argued, and people in charge of prosecuting violaters of the geneva convention accepted through inaction.

That the conventions don't apply to unlawful combatants, nowhere are they mentioned.

Only civilians and lawful combatants.

This. Exactly this.
It is accepted that ISIL fighters are not lawful combatants- in other words, are not recognised as legally adhering soldiers, militia, or civilians. These agreements do not apply to them.

I notice that you complete ignored my quote from the Geneva convention directly contradicting this claim. Here's another one, from Protocol II, Article 1.1:

1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 [ Link ] common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 [ Link ] of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.

Note that both Iraq and Syria are High Contracting Parties by the definitions in question.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

This is what Bush argued, and people in charge of prosecuting violaters of the geneva convention accepted through inaction.

That the conventions don't apply to unlawful combatants, nowhere are they mentioned.

Only civilians and lawful combatants.

This. Exactly this.
It is accepted that ISIL fighters are not lawful combatants- in other words, are not recognised as legally adhering soldiers, militia, or civilians. These agreements do not apply to them.

Perhaps you could show me the bit of the Geneva Conventions that mentions unlawful combatants.

[The East Marches]

This. Exactly this.
It is accepted that ISIL fighters are not lawful combatants- in other words, are not recognised as legally adhering soldiers, militia, or civilians. These agreements do not apply to them.

Perhaps you could show me the bit of the Geneva Conventions that mentions unlawful combatants.

Franc-tireurs section

[Lamadia 2016]

This. Exactly this.
It is accepted that ISIL fighters are not lawful combatants- in other words, are not recognised as legally adhering soldiers, militia, or civilians. These agreements do not apply to them.

Perhaps you could show me the bit of the Geneva Conventions that mentions unlawful combatants.

Perhaps you could show me evidence to show ISIL is classified within the boundaries & norms of international law which, when written, was not done in light of the criminality installed by the ISIS group?

[Salandriagado]

Perhaps you could show me the bit of the Geneva Conventions that mentions unlawful combatants.

Perhaps you could show me evidence to show ISIL is classified within the boundaries & norms of international law which, when written, was not done in light of the criminality installed by the ISIS group?

Can someone else please copy/paste my GC quotes? I'm assuming Lamadia has put me on ignore or something?

[Ostroeuropa]

This. Exactly this.
It is accepted that ISIL fighters are not lawful combatants- in other words, are not recognised as legally adhering soldiers, militia, or civilians. These agreements do not apply to them.

Perhaps you could show me the bit of the Geneva Conventions that mentions unlawful combatants.

It doesn't, that's the entire point.
Which strongly suggests they aren't covered, or there would be no need for "Lawful" to be mentioned at all when mentioning combatants and the protections offered them.

Sort of like "British citizens." and now you're in here arguing that Russian Citizens can vote in our elections because citizens can, and I point out "It doesn't say citizen. It says British Citizen."

The document clearly states, lawful combatants. If it covered combatants, it would say so, but it doesn't say that.

This argument was successful when the USA used it, it's on record at the UN as BEING their argument, and precisely no charges were brought. As far as i'm concerned, that settles the matter, and would probably be a strong case of precedent if the UN up and decided to change their minds later on when you pointed out they previously seemed to have accepted this argument. (Even if they only did so because they had no choice.)

[Salandriagado]

Perhaps you could show me the bit of the Geneva Conventions that mentions unlawful combatants.

It doesn't, that's the entire point.
Which strongly suggests they aren't covered, or there would be no need for "Lawful" to be mentioned at all when mentioning combatants and the protections offered them.

Sort of like "British citizens." and now you're in here arguing that Russian Citizens can vote in our elections because citizens can, and I point out "It doesn't say citizen. It says British Citizen."

The document clearly states, lawful combatants.

This argument was successful when the USA used it, it's on record at the UN as BEING their argument, and precisely no charges were brought. As far as i'm concerned, that settles the matter, and would probably be a strong case of precedent if the UN up and decided to change their minds later on when you pointed out they previously seemed to have accepted this argument. (Even if they only did so because they had no choice.)

You're doing a remarkably good job of ignoring the article and entire protocol, that I've already quoted and linked in this thread, that directly do mention them.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.juridicainternational.eu/?id=12632

Here. Even though the link disagrees with the argument, it acknowledges it was made, and appears to have worked.

Notice by the way:

The term ‘unlawful combatant’ became better known during the recent armed conflict in Afghanistan, when the Bush administration announced its decision to classify the captured Taliban soldiers and al-Qaeda fighters as unlawful combatants and, as a consequence, to deny them prisoner-of-war status.*1 This has provoked a heated debate over the exact status and protection of such persons. In view of the current security situation around the world, it has been asserted ever more frequently that unlawful combatants are not entitled to any protection whatsoever under international humanitarian law. These statements are clouded in emotional rhetoric and are also dangerous, as they lead to a situation where certain persons in armed conflict are left in a legal vacuum. Yet every person has the fundamental and undeniable right to recognition before the law. It is the general principle of the four Geneva Conventions (1949)*2 and their two Additional Protocols (1977)*3 that every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law

"They're using Emotional rhetoric!"
Then devolves into
"But the principle of it, never mind the words!"

[Lamadia 2016]

Perhaps you could show me evidence to show ISIL is classified within the boundaries & norms of international law which, when written, was not done in light of the criminality installed by the ISIS group?

Can someone else please copy/paste my GC quotes? I'm assuming Lamadia has put me on ignore or something?

I haven't.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Well, it's not part of the UK so it's not like her parents will have to pay taxes on its' securing for the rest of their lives.

Don't mention taxes, you'll trigger her.

So what's your opinion on mens gender isssues Lamadia? Do you agree with me that the conservative party is our best bet for solving them?

No she doesn't believe in gender issues, but you have to respect her authority cause moneys. She's like gold dust and her entitlement means she can treat the rest of us like dirt.

Like a colony of ants, the United Hivemind of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will seek out and destroy all traitors and foreigners.

Aye, and with me as traitor-in-chief she is currently throwing a hissy fit about why she got a longer than time then me. I wonder if she went to the same school as Kim-Jong-Un.

Lamadia, you do know this blocking thing is meant to be two-sided? Be a star and please fulfill the requirements as laid out in your ban, ta darling.

You're obviously working under the misapprehension that if a moderator tells one poster to put another one on ignore, that means that the second poster gets to make constant disparaging remarks about the first, as the first poster isn't supposed to be able to see them.

Allow me to disabuse you of this notion.

*** Two Week Ban For Constant And Uninterrupted Harassment, Trolling, And Flaming Of Lamdia 2016 ***

Your behavior in this matter has been utterly unacceptable. If you continue on this course, you will lose this nation. If you post during the ban, you will lose both this nation and the one you used to post past ban.

Use this time not just to review the Rules, but to reconsider the path that you're taking here.

[Big Brain City]

http://www.juridicainternational.eu/?id=12632

Here. Even though the link disagrees with the argument, it acknowledges it was made, and appears to have worked.

Notice by the way:

The term ‘unlawful combatant’ became better known during the recent armed conflict in Afghanistan, when the Bush administration announced its decision to classify the captured Taliban soldiers and al-Qaeda fighters as unlawful combatants and, as a consequence, to deny them prisoner-of-war status.*1 This has provoked a heated debate over the exact status and protection of such persons. In view of the current security situation around the world, it has been asserted ever more frequently that unlawful combatants are not entitled to any protection whatsoever under international humanitarian law. These statements are clouded in emotional rhetoric and are also dangerous, as they lead to a situation where certain persons in armed conflict are left in a legal vacuum. Yet every person has the fundamental and undeniable right to recognition before the law. It is the general principle of the four Geneva Conventions (1949)*2 and their two Additional Protocols (1977)*3 that every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law

"They're using Emotional rhetoric!"
Then devolves into
"But the principle of it, never mind the words!"

But internationally, wouldn't they be outlaws?

[Salandriagado]

Can someone else please copy/paste my GC quotes? I'm assuming Lamadia has put me on ignore or something?

I haven't.

So you're just ignoring the actual proof that you are wrong, and continuing to lie?

[Salandriagado]

http://www.juridicainternational.eu/?id=12632

Here. Even though the link disagrees with the argument, it acknowledges it was made, and appears to have worked.

Notice by the way:



"They're using Emotional rhetoric!"
Then devolves into
"But the principle of it, never mind the words!"

But internationally, wouldn't they be outlaws?

No, because that isn't a thing that exists in international law, or any sane legal system.

[Ifreann]

British ISIS member wants to come home; feels ‘homesick’.
Absolutely reasonable, of course. The man was depressed, unhappy, misses his family, misses his home. He doesn’t want to be a terrorist anymore; he doesn’t want to execute any more homosexuals, stone any more women, blow up any more hospitals. Which is why I absolutely advocate sending a jet to go an collect him, bring him back to the UK, set up a red carpet & a welcoming party on the runway- with a brass band, and maybe even balloons!
And then, of course, as he descends the steps to the ‘welcome home’ signs, police officers step out of the crowds and shoot him down with a sub-automatic weapon. An absolute tribute to the ‘poor, depressed English teacher’ who just wants to ‘come home’.

You're advocating murder. You're advocating pointless, wasteful, public murder, for no reason I can fathom other than a desire to see someone you hate die violently.

---

She suggested shooting those who have returned to Britain.

A terrorist entering britain is an invader, ofcourse we should defend ourselves. It's absurd to think otherwise, the fuck am I reading here?

Not the post being discussed, apparently.

---

You are not aware very far.

Here we go.
But no- there is a general consensus that ISIL does not clarify for international law, and therefore we can refuse to accept surrender. And regardless, who is going to stop us? The U.S agrees. Russia agrees. No doubt most countries in the EU agree.

Reminder that you did not advocate refusal to accept surrender, you advocated accepting a surrender, transporting a prisoner to Britain, and then murdering them in full view of the public.

There is a stark fucking difference between killing people in the course of war and killing prisoners for your own sick entertainment. Maybe Ostro's willing to ignore that so he can bang his "No rights for ISIS" drum, maybe everyone else got distracted by that. But that doesn't change what you posted.

[Farnhamia]

British ISIS member wants to come home; feels ‘homesick’.
Absolutely reasonable, of course. The man was depressed, unhappy, misses his family, misses his home. He doesn’t want to be a terrorist anymore; he doesn’t want to execute any more homosexuals, stone any more women, blow up any more hospitals. Which is why I absolutely advocate sending a jet to go an collect him, bring him back to the UK, set up a red carpet & a welcoming party on the runway- with a brass band, and maybe even balloons!
And then, of course, as he descends the steps to the ‘welcome home’ signs, police officers step out of the crowds and shoot him down with a sub-automatic weapon. An absolute tribute to the ‘poor, depressed English teacher’ who just wants to ‘come home’.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The very notion that we should accept and reintegrate these monsters back into society is a farce, and is something the British public will not swallow. Men, and women, who conduct criminal terrorist acts in the name of a twisted and misinterpreted faith, who condemn innocent people to death in the most barbaric means possible, and who pledge to wipe out own societies off the face of the earth, have no place in the West, and must be eradicated. My first action as Prime Minister would be to authorise the extrajudicial killings of UK-born terrorists operating abroad, and to establish a special intelligence committee responsible for tracking anybody with terror links and compiling the appropriate evidence to prosecute, or indeed terminate, them to minimise the risk to the British public.
No negotiation, no sympathy. We must smash terrorism.

*** DEAT for advocating death and an accumulated record of rules violations. This includes a one month forum ban no the player. Do not get caught coming back before then. ***

[Imperializt Russia]

British ISIS member wants to come home; feels ‘homesick’.
Absolutely reasonable, of course. The man was depressed, unhappy, misses his family, misses his home. He doesn’t want to be a terrorist anymore; he doesn’t want to execute any more homosexuals, stone any more women, blow up any more hospitals. Which is why I absolutely advocate sending a jet to go an collect him, bring him back to the UK, set up a red carpet & a welcoming party on the runway- with a brass band, and maybe even balloons!
And then, of course, as he descends the steps to the ‘welcome home’ signs, police officers step out of the crowds and shoot him down with a sub-automatic weapon. An absolute tribute to the ‘poor, depressed English teacher’ who just wants to ‘come home’.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The very notion that we should accept and reintegrate these monsters back into society is a farce, and is something the British public will not swallow. Men, and women, who conduct criminal terrorist acts in the name of a twisted and misinterpreted faith, who condemn innocent people to death in the most barbaric means possible, and who pledge to wipe out own societies off the face of the earth, have no place in the West, and must be eradicated. My first action as Prime Minister would be to authorise the extrajudicial killings of UK-born terrorists operating abroad, and to establish a special intelligence committee responsible for tracking anybody with terror links and compiling the appropriate evidence to prosecute, or indeed terminate, them to minimise the risk to the British public.
No negotiation, no sympathy. We must smash terrorism.

Your account's already been deleted, but oh well.

IS' only meaningful advantage is its ability to fight the propaganda war. People still join IS.
De-radicalisation could be a significant win in the propaganda war against IS, who are desperately short of anyone who doesn't man a rifle or a suicide belt.

Wars aren't won solely through violence, as anyone aware of Vietnam should be acutely aware.
The pro-North pro-Communist (and most communist or pro-communist forces worldwide, weirdly enough) put a lot of faith into propaganda war. In Vietnam, propaganda won over the superior firepower of the west.
The Tet Offensive of 1968 resulted in the NVA and associated militias being absolutely smashed on the ground and completely repulsed, but images of NVA militiamen inside supposedly safe areas in supposed pro-west strongholds had a powerful effect. This tactical failure was expected to, and succeeded in being, a major strategic victory for the pro-communist NVA by providing a major catalyst for the anti-war movement.

[Imperializt Russia]

Like a colony of ants, the United Hivemind of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will seek out and destroy all traitors and foreigners.

You think my intention to destroy terrorist organisations operating abroad is a bad thing?

When your intention is based upon persons no longer members of that organisation (which you explicitly stated) being assassinated by the security forces after, functionally, surrendering, yes.
It's not a plan to destroy terrorist organisations operating abroad.
Having the Blue Cross liquidated in that hundred-foot food processor from that Treehouse of Horror Simpsons episode would be as effective.

Maybe your ex-NATO grandmother can enlighten you as to the laws of war.

[Imperializt Russia]

We tried that in NI. Didn't work.

Well, it's not part of the UK so it's not like her parents will have to pay taxes on its' securing for the rest of their lives.

Northern Ireland has been a continued part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and later the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (get the name? From 1927) since January 1 1801.

[Imperializt Russia]

Perhaps you could show me the bit of the Geneva Conventions that mentions unlawful combatants.

Perhaps you could show me evidence to show ISIL is classified within the boundaries & norms of international law which, when written, was not done in light of the criminality installed by the ISIS group?

It was done in the light of paramilitaries and partisan groups of WWII and WWI. People who were expressly "criminals".

The ICRC (Red Cross) considers, for humanitarian reasons, anyone not a member of an official state military to be covered under either the Third Convention ("combatant") or Fourth Convention ("civilian") under the belief that no-one can, or ever should, be considered outside of those two categories.

To do so would be a very slippery slope and could legitimise the execution of special forces and intelligence operatives - or partisan forces.

[Vassenor]

So three senior members of the Conservative party are saying the government should drop its appeal against the Article 50 ruling.

Not because of anything to do with judicial independence or parliamentary sovereignty though.

Instead it's because going forward with it means they might have to give the devolved legislatures a say in something that will substantially affect them.

So in other words the Scottish and Welsh assemblies should get no say because the government can't guarantee they'll be a bunch of yes-men.

[HMS Vanguard]

British ISIS member wants to come home; feels ‘homesick’.
Absolutely reasonable, of course. The man was depressed, unhappy, misses his family, misses his home. He doesn’t want to be a terrorist anymore; he doesn’t want to execute any more homosexuals, stone any more women, blow up any more hospitals. Which is why I absolutely advocate sending a jet to go an collect him, bring him back to the UK, set up a red carpet & a welcoming party on the runway- with a brass band, and maybe even balloons!
And then, of course, as he descends the steps to the ‘welcome home’ signs, police officers step out of the crowds and shoot him down with a sub-automatic weapon. An absolute tribute to the ‘poor, depressed English teacher’ who just wants to ‘come home’.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The very notion that we should accept and reintegrate these monsters back into society is a farce, and is something the British public will not swallow. Men, and women, who conduct criminal terrorist acts in the name of a twisted and misinterpreted faith, who condemn innocent people to death in the most barbaric means possible, and who pledge to wipe out own societies off the face of the earth, have no place in the West, and must be eradicated. My first action as Prime Minister would be to authorise the extrajudicial killings of UK-born terrorists operating abroad, and to establish a special intelligence committee responsible for tracking anybody with terror links and compiling the appropriate evidence to prosecute, or indeed terminate, them to minimise the risk to the British public.
No negotiation, no sympathy. We must smash terrorism.

*** DEAT for advocating death and an accumulated record of rules violations. This includes a one month forum ban no the player. Do not get caught coming back before then. ***

This is absolutely amazing - you just deleted someone's account for advocating in measured terms a policy position that already exists.

Would you warn or ban anyone who advocated abortion or the death pnealty?

Would you warn or ban anyone who advocated the actions of the British and French governments in starting WWII? Or any other war or act in war, which most surely imply support for people being killed?

This rule is crazy, and, because it is crazy, is and can only be applied selectively, against those whose opinions the moderators do not like, or entirely arbitrarily.

[HMS Vanguard]

Not to mention, spreading enemy propaganda while imprisoned which we are also legally not allowed to ban.

Ban the quran from prisons, or practicing islam in prisons, and it might make some sense to accept surrenders. Otherwise, it's a strategic error. Our prisons are already breeding grounds for radicalization and conversion, having some prat swan in to waffle about the glory of the fight and how he did his part or whatever while preaching his warped views to people who'll be out in a few months is not something we should be doing.

Basically you're not okay with any scenario that involves us not breaching some of our international treaties. It's either freedom of religion or the laws of war.

What fun.

The laws of war have changed over time.

In WWII there was no obligation where the laws of war were not reciprocated, and non-state combatants obviously couldn't reciprocate. The process for shooting them (they are entitled to an ad-hoc military tribunal to establish their identity) was even described in particulars.

I will not discuss this issue further on this board however as I am likely to be deleted for any or no reason.

[Philjia]

*** DEAT for advocating death and an accumulated record of rules violations. This includes a one month forum ban no the player. Do not get caught coming back before then. ***

This is absolutely amazing - you just deleted someone's account for advocating in measured terms a policy position that already exists.

Would you warn or ban anyone who advocated abortion or the death pnealty?

Would you warn or ban anyone who advocated the actions of the British and French governments in starting WWII? Or any other war or act in war, which most surely imply support for people being killed?

This rule is crazy, and, because it is crazy, is and can only be applied selectively, against those whose opinions the moderators do not like, or entirely arbitrarily.

She literally said she wanted somebody shot without trial on UK turf. That's not warfare, that's assassination.