Article

2005-12-12 International-UN-NGOs

Red ~~Thingy~~ Cross codifies war rules, targets terror crimes

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-12-12 00:25|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Got a Confidence Meter Fred? One with the needle wrapped around the zero peg two or three times?

If only .001% as much honest effort was put into eliminating corruption, graft, backward and barbaric customs, irrational fear-mongering, nepotism, despotism, and authoritarian rule, the world could become a far more prosperous and safe place... negating most of the modern day reasons for war.

I trust the Int'l Red Thingy about as much as I do those who are applauding, such as the UN. Parasites all.

Posted by .com 2005-12-12 00:44|| 2005-12-12 00:44|| Front Page Top

#2 Lawyers at a conference in New Delhi to mark the regional launch of the code hailed it as the most important source of new Porches and beach houses in a decade.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2005-12-12 00:52|| 2005-12-12 00:52|| Front Page Top

#3 "It holds the individual responsible for their acts," he said. "Any person not bound by treaty law is going to be bound by customary law."

How long before this will be used against an un-suspecting former US military person vacationing in Europe? There's that judge in Spain...

Posted by Rafael 2005-12-12 02:15|| 2005-12-12 02:15|| Front Page Top

#4 "These rules bind people whether or not they're fighting for a state that has accepted treaties on warfare conduct or whether even they belong to an army of a country," he said.

"(This code) not only minimises the effect of non-ratification of treaty law by some states, it also addresses the applicability of humanitarian law to non-state actors."

1. NGOs have no power to promulgate binding law.

2. "Minimizing the effect of non-ratification" is aimed squarely at forcing the US to comply with the 1977 Protocol I to Geneva Convention III. The US is not a signatory, and it's not followed enough to constitute customary law, because it would extend POW protections to terrorists, guerillas, and insurgents. (One such protection is the right not to be interrogated). Protocol I is the ICRC's basis for demanding access to all our GWOT detainees, so this "code" amounts to a bald grab at global lawmaking.

3. "Non-state actors" means employees of US contractors, not terrorists of various nationalities. The ICRC knows as well as we do that publishing a little guidebook isn't going to suddenly make the head-choppers play nice, whereas we cave to international pressure all the time.

Argh!

Posted by ST 2005-12-12 03:01|| 2005-12-12 03:01|| Front Page Top

#5 ST has it right: an NGO has no right to legislate, and we are not bound by treaties we have not signed, period.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2005-12-12 08:32|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-12-12 08:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Wonder how NGO's feel if Congress passed laws making it a criminal act to attempt to exert unlawful and non-consentual powers over the government and people of the United States without the proper Constitutional executive and legislative recognition? Tack on conspiracy charges to the process as well. This could be fun!

Posted by Angomort Ulomoque7221 2005-12-12 09:24|| 2005-12-12 09:24|| Front Page Top

#7 The Red Cross has codified a set of rules on warfare aimed at making it easier to prosecute people who commit acts of terror and other crimes.

Who died and made you Congress?

Posted by BH 2005-12-12 10:14|| 2005-12-12 10:14|| Front Page Top

#8 Who died and made you Congress?

Another question to ask would be: "Who exactly is to do the prosecuting?"

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-12 10:49|| 2005-12-12 10:49|| Front Page Top

#9 "...it also addresses the applicability of humanitarian law to non-state actors."

How do Customary Laws that don't address the ramifications for non-adherence by non-state actors "hold the individual responsible for their acts"?
And it only took a decade to draft these laws?

Posted by DepotGuy 2005-12-12 12:53|| 2005-12-12 12:53|| Front Page Top

#10 Really you need the graphic of the red thingy I mean "red crystal" that is the new non-offensive symbol that is on the ICRC website.

Posted by bruce 2005-12-12 20:18|| 2005-12-12 20:18|| Front Page Top

00:02 2b
23:57 2b
23:54 gromgoru
23:34 usmc6743
23:33 gromgoru
23:32 Rafael
23:23 Frank G
23:21 Scott R
23:20 Old Patriot
23:16 Rafael
23:15 .com
23:13 .com
23:11 Seafarious
23:11 .com
23:10 Bomb-a-rama
23:04 Hupavins Ebbaing3401
23:02 .com
22:55 .com
22:54 .com
22:53 Old Patriot
22:51 .com
22:48 .com
22:42 Zhang Fei
22:41 Atomic Conspiracy