web analytics

PARALYSING OUR WAR ON TERROR….

By ATWadmin On June 14th, 2007

It’s just so pathetic. Iraqi "civilians" arrested and detained by British soldiers can now rely on the protection of the Human Rights Act, the House of Lords said yesterday in a landmark judgment, which has far-reaching implications for future military operations abroad. Since the Islamic Jihadi operate in the guise of civilians, this means that the Human Rights Act will henceforth act as their guarantor of safety. We’re undermining our own military who risk their lives to capture Iraqi criminals and terrorists and we’re clearly helping Al Queda – all care of the wicked Human Rights Act – now imported into Iraq via the House of Lords in London. Shocking.

24 Responses to “PARALYSING OUR WAR ON TERROR….”

  1. Are we still allowed to shoot the enemy or is that against their human rights now?

  2. A conflict between combatants where both recognise and accept the Geneva Convention and the concept of human rights is one thing. A conflict where one of the combatants recognises neither the Geneva Convention nor the concept of human rights is another. In this type of conflict one could find oneself fighting with both hands tied behind ones back.

  3. The teething troubles are gone, the Internet is powering away at 3 times the speed of light and I’m in the mood to seriously annoy some Lefties and republicans.

    somebody should tell the lonely giblet that he will never know either way.

  4. Peter T,

    "A conflict where one of the combatants recognises neither the Geneva Convention nor the concept of human rights is another."

    The US and who else?

    "In this type of conflict one could find oneself fighting with both hands tied behind ones back."

    Which human rights, specifically, do you think the UK needs to trample on in order to win the "fight"?

  5. >>Which human rights, specifically, do you think the UK needs to trample on in order to win the "fight"?<<

    The right to life of the enemy.

  6. Charles,

    Nope.

    "Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

    * (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
    * (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully detained;
    * (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. "

  7. Frank, I’ll have to send this to my lawyer Mahons to translate it ino Texan for me.

    I Think it says that it’s already ok to kill the enemy when done properly?

    Does it not, though, unduly burden the soldier who is fighting for his country in good faith, in that he could be criminally charged for error?

  8. >>A conflict between combatants where both recognise and accept the Geneva Convention and the concept of human rights is one thing. A conflict where one of the combatants recognises neither the Geneva Convention nor the concept of human rights is another.<<

    Pete, Peter, Charles, would you agree that an enemy country that did not take part in the Geneva Convention has no rights under it?

  9. Noel – I’ll take a stab at that. I think the spirit of the Geneva Convention would extend to non-participating countries, in terms of the protections afforded by the Convention. The protections are pretty basic after all. Maybe that isn’t pure International Law, but it should be.

  10. Noel. I agree that a country that has not signed the convention has no rights under it.
    Al-Queda isn’t even a country. Should their non-uniformed soldiers be given the same treatment as those of a country following the laws of war? If so, why would al-queda WANT to sign it. It wouldn’t be in their best interests. They get all of the rights accorded to POWs, but none of the responsibilities.

    Our soldiers in Gitmo have to put on white gloves before handing a prisoner a Koran. Our people when take prisoner, if they aren’t shot in the head, have their heads sawed off on video. Paper treaties aren’t going to protect our folks.

  11. Mahons, it’s that blue/red thing, isn’t it! 😉

  12. Charles – Translate into Texan? OK, let me try:

    "If y’all are fixing to shoot a son of a bitch, and I mean shot him so he don’t git up no more and gits colder than a witch’s tit in a brass bra on the dark side of the moon, then y’all best do it when:

    (a) y’all are defending any person (not just kin) from unlawful violence.

    (b) y’all are helping a sheriff or Texas Ranger make an arrest of some dang fool critter or preventing that critter once arrested from heading over the Rio Grande.

    (c) y’all are quelling a riot (be it a Dallas Cowboy’s playoff loss, or a shortage of ladies chewing tobacco at the Winn Dixie Supermarket).

    (d) y’all are shooting at Yankee lawyers.

  13. Jesus Mahons, I’m laughing so hard I can hardly type!!!

  14. That’s the hardest I’ve laughed since Cheney shot in that man’s face or Clinton shot in that girl’s!

  15. Cheers Charles. I had a buddy from Austin sitting next to me for three years of school in New Orleans so the songs of the South are still in my head. Our friends across the Sea must be worried we’ll start talking Stonewall Jackson, Pickett’s Charge and Grant’s fondness for whiskey next.

  16. Three years next to a native Texan explains it. I couldn’t figure out how a New Yorker would know how we speak amongst ourselves. No one but a native Texan knows that "fixin’ to" means "I’m going to."

    And I say colder than a witches tit in a brass bra all the time!

    LBJ would’ve been impressed!

  17. *hands popcorn round as we all watch the quaint Americans*
    :o)

  18. >>No one but a native Texan knows that "fixin’ to" means "I’m going to."<<

    Nonsense, all familiar with the songs of Booker T. Washington White, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Country Joe McDonald – none of whom hails from the Lone Star – or even the Woodstock Album will understand the phrase.

  19. Noel: Don’t rain on our parade.

    Aileen: funny.

  20. Noel, Are you fixing to throw a rusty bucket down my well? 😉

  21. One thing I’m bad about in conversation is saying "I ain’t got no."

    I’m sure everyone here would agree that it’s hard to be from Texas and sound smart! 😉

  22. Mahons,

    "y’all are defending any person (not just kin)"

    lol

  23. Does it not, though, unduly burden the soldier who is fighting for his country in good faith, in that he could be criminally charged for error?

    charles,

    adherence to the geneva convention must be considered at the individual level. its up to each combatant to make the call. whether a rank giving an order or a private caught in a bind. both can equally put on trial for the decisions they make. i think its what conservatives call personal responsibility.

    I agree that a country that has not signed the convention has no rights under it.I agree that a country that has not signed the convention has no rights under it.

    the same justification used by the nazis for their brutality against the soviet union.

    Nonsense, all familiar with the songs of Booker T. Washington White, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Country Joe McDonald – none of whom hails from the Lone Star – or even the Woodstock Album will understand the phrase.

    you dont even need to be that cultured. the original hillbillies came from ulster o_O

  24. >>"I agree that a country that has not signed the convention has no rights under it.I agree that a country that has not signed the convention has no rights under it."

    the same justification used by the nazis for their brutality against the soviet union.the same.<<

    That’s exactly what I was getting at. This and Pater T’s comment at 11:29 are verbatim what Hitler said when giving his notorious Commissar Order.
    How little times, or certain people at least, have changed!