I'd wager that I've met far more Muslim women than you have. I'm plugged into the very heart of the Muslim community in the UK. I sit on the boards of various Muslim youth organisations here, which have both male and female members. And I agree that they should be equal in dignity with men. In fact, men should place women on a pedestal in terms of respect. You do realise that I have sisters, cousins, a grandmother and a mother (as well as extended Muslim female family), right? Why would I not want the best for Muslim women? And why do you assume that I haven't done something about it? Do you have an inbuilt prejudice against me personally, or do you always think the worst about everyone you meet? I'm not going to be lectured on women's rights by a person who has contempt for other ways of life, I'm afraid. By the way, in which language did you converse with the many women you met in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
I pray for the victims of drug dealers such as the ones in mexico. Maybe you think troops should be put at risk, I however understand that it is better not to risk your own troops to beat your enemy. So while you are crying at night over the loss of wonderful human beings like John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy, and worried about terrorists who advocate the murder of innocents like what happened on 9/11, or those in Mexico cutting off the heads of people who dare speak out against them in social media, I will sleep sounder at night knowing that there are people like me out there who will not tolerate such scum among us and are working to remove them so that we can be just a little safer each day.
Careful, if you argue too much with him, and prove him wrong, he will give you a smart ass answer then run off and hide ignoring any further discussion on the topic. Hey umar, still waiting for you to explain the legality or not of drones, and what did you mean by sarcozy being almost a zionist???
But how can you sleep sound at night when you know that you will be asleep and so unable to make us all a little safer? Aren't you worried that if you sleep we might be in danger? On the issue of drones, read my posts carefully. On the issue of Sarkozy being a Zionist, read his views on the state of israel, and the Le Figaro reports of him being employed by Mossad. The thing that annoys me about you is your intellectual laziness. You mentioned "something in the Geneva Conventions" about uniforms a while back, but had you actually read the relevant provisions you would not have continued arguing with me about that. Why should I waste my time sourcing and linking shit for you when you can't be bothered to source your own shit, or read up when the relevant provisions have been laid out for you?
Still waiting on those answers........... No, because I know there are like minded people out there to do the job. I bet you're stoked that women in SA will get to vote someday, too bad they won't get to drive to the polling place. And I am sure they love being dressed head to toe with only their eyes showing.....
Here's a deal on the drone issues. I start with my point of view, with relevant source and link. You then respond with your own legal source, instead of relying on me to do your work for you. We can continue in that vein, but each point and counter-point must be sourced with relevant provisions of international law. Agreed?
Ho hum, your statements on uniforms was again lacking in knowledge or sources. You made a statement about what to wear and I asked you to show me where the taliban or aq even manage to wear that. Of course to you on that discussion you think a battlefield has lines and is specified and mapped out like a footy field. Drones? You never answered that either. Danced around it, but no direct answer. Are they unlawful as you claim? Show us all how they are unlawful. sarkozy was an agent for mossad? Proof of that if you will. Of course my question was is calling him an almost zionist sounded like you meant that as a slur and I asked you to explain your intent there as I was confused. Something you still haven't done. My laziness huh? Yet I provide sources to back up my assertions, why don't you go ahead and do the same. But of course looking back at the discussion, you reverted to insults almost right away when I challenged your limited views. A sure sign that you had nothing tangible to say.
Clearly the world fell on your head as a child. OK - they are unlawful because their use breaches Article 10 of the UDHR, as well as Articles 14-16 of the ICCPR. Over to you.
And again with the insults....boooooorrrrrrrriiiiiiiiinnnnngggggg Article 10 of the UDHR You're kidding right? So enemy combatants are now supposed to get a hearing before they are attacked? LOL Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. The next one is just as silly. Then every weapon used in any war is illegal based on the sources you provided. Is this really the best you could do?
Do you have evidence that all the people killed were in active combat operations? Have you provided sources? Have you backed up your assertions? Have you responded using links to the relevant provisions of IHL? I thought not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damadola_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenagai_airstrike Stop wasting my time.
“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” Does Article 10 apply to every one; I mean can any Army shoot another soldier with out bringing him to court first? Who determines if a country or person is violating this article, what is the process to bringing some one to justice regarding this? Haw many countries have been found guilty of violating this article? Could Hamas and the IDF be tried under this article? What is an independent and impartial tribunal? The Hague? If a tribunal is set up but the “criminal” refuses to surrender to the tribunal who has the obligation to bring him to trial? What if that entity refuses to enforce the arrest warrant? I am not saying you are wrong, It would make a nice case study if some one actually brings charges against the USA against this and see what the courts say.
If someone sensible wants to have an actual conversation, the strawmen will soon disappear from both sides and I'll be happy to discuss these complex issues in good faith. But I'm not gonna waste my time debating the finer points of IHL with someone who cannot read, never mind apply, the relevant provisions. It costs me time to research, I expect anyone else debating these points to also invest some time themselves, instead of being lazy and expecting me to do their research for them.
"Procedural fairness and rights of the accused" Article 14 deals with the trial when someone is arrested. Article 16 just says that all persons on trial should be recognized as persons. So these two deal with people under arrest, so maybe these would apply to the Guantanamo bay detainees, but no the drone attacks.
The tears just keep falling from you. Basically there is no LAW that says drones are illegal. You have yet to discuss anything here in good faith. Your entire perspective on this is childish at best. Drones are a weapon of war and are being used as such. Your infantile arguments further prove that you really don't have any viable argument against the use of drones. Drones are no more illegal then ieds, M-4s Ak-47's etc.... Grow up and either present a law that states drones are illegal, unlawful using your word, or admit to being wrong and move on. It is pretty simple, I would expect even you could understand this. Maybe.
These are lots of questions. Do you want me to research the answers for you? I'm at work so I've clearly got nothing better to do. Hint - I reckon that if you do the research from the perspective of a person justifying the drone attacks, you will eventually justify the killings not under the national criminal law, but under the laws of War. You will eventually wind up applying the general principles of proportionality and self-defence. And that is where we will end up agreeing to disagree - on the facts of the case, and not the law itself.
What about the completely innocent people who are murdered because of the policies of the United States? Do you sleep more soundly at night knowing that they're dead too?
Oh, so it's only bad to kill innocent people if you intentionally hunt them down? So, if you kill a bunch of innocent people because you attack a bunch of people that you aren't exactly sure who they are, then that's ok?
OK, there is no law. Which is why proponents of the drone strikes such as Harold Koh have said that the strikes "comply with all applicable law." When he said "all applicable law", he clearly meant "the strikes comply will all non-existing laws which do not exist to not cover this sort of thing". Why do you refuse to read and research shit that you are discussing? Just do a google search on "Harold Koh", "American Society of International Law" and "Drones", and plagiarise from there. It would be better than going on and on about something that you clearly are ignorant about.
Not really, the disagreement is that the United Nations does not specify on how to bring those persons to trial, it just specifies that they have the right to a fair trial. But if the person does not wish to have a trail then what does the United Nations want states to do? They are blank on this issue, any enforcements of the UN then fall to the Security council, so the Security council must apply the Human rights protections, so it is the obligation of the security council to tell the USA, or Russia or any other state when they are in violation of the Human rights articles, the General Assembly can also pass a resolution condemning a country as a violator, this is mostly symbolic but it could put pressure on the SC to act. I guess that in your opinion the USA should stop the drone attacks and allow the Interpol to arrest suspected terrorist, that could work, but you read the law as the attacks denying the right to a fair trial for those being attacked. I see it as the UN not being clear on how to bring those suspects to trial so the USA and other nations act on what they perceive their best national interest and self defense to carry out those attacks. Just like when Clinton sent missiles to destroy terrorist camps, to you that violates Article 10, to others that was part of a nation’s right to defend their sovereignty, again, it would be nice to have a case where these two different opinions could be tested. But I do not see that happening. So it becomes a case study of Human rights vs. National right for self defense. What would win out, sadly we won’t find out any time soon.
Drones are a weapon of war and fall under the conventions of war namely the Geneva Convention. They are no more illegal then any firearm out there. pretty simple to understand.
Is that what I said? Funny but I don't remember saying that at all. I believe you need to put this in context to understand my point, and I need to do the same to understand yours. For me, the use of drones to hit aq and the taliban, and if need be pirates, or drug runners is acceptable and preferable to sending in troops or bombing a location using planes or artillery. At no point am I advocating attacking innocents, I never have, but the reality of war is that innocents get caught in the crossfire. Using a drone with the cameras on them you get a more accurate hit on a target that will lessen the overall impact on innocents. At least in comparison to a B-52 or 155 Howitzer. If you send in a SEAL team, or another ops team you run the risk of losing your own troops, and this is war so you don't want to lose your own people obviously, and you also run into the issue of confusion in the battle where innocents may get hit.