A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cuba Travel Ban



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #231  
Old November 28th, 2003, 11:34 PM
Anonymous
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Michael Voight Ban

mrtravel whined:

I don't understand.


That seems to be a recurring problem with you.....

About Netkook Troll/Newsgroups Flooder Michael "mrtravel" Voight

"mrtravel" is the usenet handle of a brainless usenet troll whose
real name is Michael Voight . He works for Cisco in
San Jose and apparently they don't keep him busy enough so he has to troll
usenet when he isn't looking for foreign brides to marry in exchange for
money in alt.visa.us.marriage-based and alt.personals.big-folks, or trying
to pick up minors in alt.personals.teens or any of the number of creepy
newsgroups he frequents. Some of his other trolling aliases are Network
Guy, , and sleepydoc .
His latest ones are jlhunt and Lost 5 of 8
.

His phone number is 831-252-2606.

He's got a daughter in Orange County that one of his ex-wives had the
intelligence to take away from him. Lord only knows what could have
happened to her if she had continued to live with the kook. The other kids
he has belong to his previous Russian sleazy brides, and since they come
and go so do the kids. It wouldn't hurt to let Cisco know what kind of
deviant sexual pervert maniac they have working for them, so....

For starters, forward his idiotic posts to
.

He works in technical support, so forward them to
.

He often posts through sbcglobal and prodigy, so forward them to
and as well.

You can also call them at 1 800 553 2447 and ask to speak with a supervisor
and explain that you are EXTREMELY unhappy that this idiot spends his whole
day at work playing on the internet on company time. THEY WILL NOT LIKE
THAT.

Then write to corporate headquarters explaining what this idiot is doing
and telling them HOW BAD IT IS FOR THEIR COMPANY IMAGE. They will LOVE
that you brought this to their attention:

Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA

Then also call them. You should always follow up email or letters with
phone calls. Always ask for supervisors or managers. Try to get as far up
as possible.

(408)526-4000
(800)553-NETS or
(800)553-6387

Contact Investor Relations and tell them you are interested in investing in
their company but won't do so until they get rid of this asshole who is
wasting company resources:

Cisco Systems, Inc.
Investor Relations Department
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Phone: (408) 526-8890
Fax: (408) 526-4545
Email:


Might as well contact customer service too, they LOVE to hear about this
type of stuff:

USA 1 800 553 6387




Then finally, send letters with copies of his nasty posts addressed
personally to each one of the OFFICERS of the company using the
headquarters address. Believe me, they READ your complaints and are VERY
INTERESTED in them, especially if it's about one of their employees. They
will take a PERSONAL interest in rooting this ASSHOLE out of their company:

John Morgridge, Chairman
John Chambers, President, CEO
Donald Valentine, Vice Chairman
Larry Carter, CFO, Sr. VP-Fin. and Admin., Sec., Director
Richard Justice, Sr. VP, Worldwide Field Operations

Have fun!
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.




  #232  
Old November 28th, 2003, 11:46 PM
Go Fig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cuba Travel Ban

In article ,
mrtravel wrote:

Go Fig wrote:
In article ,
mrtravel wrote:


Go Fig wrote:

They are to be humanely treated. If they are POWs they MUST indicate
provide their surname, first names, rank, birth date of birth, and their
army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. Many of
those in Gitmo have refused to do so... a violation of CG and POW status.

Are you saying that anyone who gives this information will then be
considered to be a POW? Have they been told this?



Hardly, but it is part of the requirements to get the POW status, I have
already listed some of the others. It is not a one-way street. Again,
these requirements were instituted to protect innocent civilians during
an armed engagement


I don't understand. If revealing the info won't get them POW status


That alone won't, but without it they can be considered unlawful
belligerents.

What is so hard to understand, there is a list of requirements, of
which, one of them is to provide this info.


and it is a requirement by the Geneva Convention to get POW status, then why
did you bring the refusal of "many" to give this information?


It goes to the determination of POW status without the need for a
tribunal, because there can be "no doubt" if they are unwilling to
provide this mandated info. They are not POWs.

jay
Fri, Nov 28, 2003




--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."
  #233  
Old November 29th, 2003, 12:31 AM
Simon Elliott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cuba Travel Ban

Go Fig writes
That's because you're a citizen of a country which has a regular army in
the accepted sense. The GC casts a wider net:

4.A.1: "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well
as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces." (Note no mention of the four tests in 4.A.2).

4.A.6: "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of
the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,
provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of
war."


You think this is the case with regards to the Talliban, who had been in
armed control of the country for years ?


Afghanistan is stuffed full of heavily armed locals with tribal rather
than national allegiance who can be counted on to pick up a weapon and
resist an invader. These would be covered by 4.A.6.

Armed forces under the control of the Taliban would be covered by 4.A.1.
This applies irrespective of whether they pass the four tests outlined
in 4.A.2.

Irregular militia are covered if they pass the four tests outlined in
4.A.2.

But according to the GC, whether the detainees are entitled to POW
status is for the "competent tribunal" to decide. (Amnesty International
is of the opinion that a US court would be acceptable as a "competent
tribunal".)


Hardly an authoritative body.


The U.S. has said any tribunal will be made up of 3 officers.


That would be in line with 1997 US military regulations and past US
practice.

You do
know that the U.S. is not a party to the additional protocol added to
the 4th CG in 1977. Specifically Protocol 1 Article 75 that enumerates
'due process.'


Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm specifically referring to the 3rd Geneva
Convention 12 August 1949.

Until the "competent tribunal" has ruled, the GC stipulates
that the detainees must be treated as POWs.


From Article 5, 3rd GC: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons,
having committed a belligerent act..." if that is now your argument,
fine, we can debate that. Al Queda in there own words, say they will not
fight according to conventional laws of war.


According to Human Rights Watch, Al Queda detainees would have to pass
the four tests outlined in 4.A.2. If they failed these tests, they would
not be eligible for POW status. Unfortunately we don't know whether any
of the detainees (Taliban, Al Queda or otherwise) are eligible for POW
status, as they haven't yet been assessed by a competent tribunal.

This goes against past US practice and statements of position, for
example In 1987, then-Deputy Legal Advisor to the U.S. State Department,
Michael Matheson, stated that:

"We [the United States] do support the principle that, should any doubt
arise as to whether a person is entitled to combatant status, he be so
treated until his status has been determined by a competent tribunal, as
well as the principle that if a person who has fallen into the power of
an adversary is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried for an
offense arising out of the hostilities, he should have the right to
assert his entitlement before a judicial tribunal and to have that
question adjudicated."

They are to be humanely treated.


If they are not assessed to be POWs, then they come under the 4th Geneva
Convention for the protection of civilians. There are no cracks in the
GC through which they can fall; they must come under either GC3 or GC4.

If they are POWs they MUST indicate
provide their surname, first names, rank, birth date of birth, and their
army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. Many of
those in Gitmo have refused to do so... a violation of CG and POW status.


17. "Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to
give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army,
regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent
information.

If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a
restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status."

.... but although his privileges can be restricted, he's still a POW.
Article 7 says that one can't renounce one's rights as a POW.

You are aware that the overwhelming number of people detained are in the
custody of the Afghans at Shiburghan, not in U.S. custody. Do you not
care about their rights... reminds me of the treatment Palestinians get
in Jordan... it is strange that is never talked about in European
circles. Perhaps those people are just 'statistics.'


I'm fully aware of how the Afghans treat their prisoners.

One major problem in Afghanistan is that the government have little
control over the country outside of Kabul. Another major problem is that
many of the locals have a tradition of inflicting unbelievable brutality
on their prisoners. It was like that when my father did his compulsory
military service in the area in 1945. It's still like that now.

The above is not to excuse the treatment they hand out to their
prisoners, but it will be a long hard haul to get them to raise their
game.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/






  #234  
Old November 29th, 2003, 12:39 AM
Simon Elliott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cuba Travel Ban

Go Fig writes
I don't understand. If revealing the info won't get them POW status


That alone won't, but without it they can be considered unlawful
belligerents.

What is so hard to understand, there is a list of requirements, of
which, one of them is to provide this info.


and it is a requirement by the Geneva Convention to get POW status, then why
did you bring the refusal of "many" to give this information?


It goes to the determination of POW status without the need for a
tribunal, because there can be "no doubt" if they are unwilling to
provide this mandated info. They are not POWs.


By my reading of GC this isn't correct. Article 17 says that a POW can
be penalised for failing to give this information, but his POW status
can't be revoked.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/






  #235  
Old November 29th, 2003, 01:21 AM
Go Fig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cuba Travel Ban

In article ,
Simon Elliott wrote:

Go Fig writes
I don't understand. If revealing the info won't get them POW status


That alone won't, but without it they can be considered unlawful
belligerents.

What is so hard to understand, there is a list of requirements, of
which, one of them is to provide this info.


and it is a requirement by the Geneva Convention to get POW status, then
why
did you bring the refusal of "many" to give this information?


It goes to the determination of POW status without the need for a
tribunal, because there can be "no doubt" if they are unwilling to
provide this mandated info. They are not POWs.


By my reading of GC this isn't correct. Article 17 says that a POW can
be penalised for failing to give this information, but his POW status
can't be revoked.



I stand corrected.

What is absolutely clear is they must carry their weapons openly and
probably have an insignia to gain POW status. POW status is not a
Right, it is a reward that has been shown to protect innocent civilians.
Additionally, even those under article 4 may be restricted for security
reasons, especially since hostilities are still ongoing. Even if the
U.S. provided them with an insignia, do you think they would have used
them... it is not about time or economics... it is desired behavior and
their leaders have as much.

jay
Fri, Nov 28, 2003


--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."
  #236  
Old November 29th, 2003, 07:05 AM
devil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cuba Travel Ban

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:39:01 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article ,
devil wrote:

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:15:38 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article ,
Simon Elliott wrote:

There are British citizens in Guantanamo. The US has stated that they
are not prisoners of war. No charges have been preferred. Since they are
neither criminals nor POWs, they now need to be returned to the UK.

Doesn't their behavior prevent them from being classified as POWs ?



*By whom?*

Due process? Or is that a privilege reserved for US citizen?



To prevent innocents from being hurt or killed, the desire of the GC.
You should not reward illegal combatants with POW status.


So, are you saying that you don't believe in due process? Or merely that
it should be reserved to US citizens?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Visit the new World Travel Index! Gordon Boyd Africa 2 February 29th, 2004 09:21 AM
Cuba Travel Ban john Air travel 24 November 12th, 2003 01:47 PM
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ Edward Hasbrouck Air travel 0 November 9th, 2003 10:09 AM
[NEWS]: Senate Approves Easing of Curbs on Cuba Travel James Anatidae Air travel 13 October 26th, 2003 07:14 PM
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ Edward Hasbrouck Air travel 0 October 10th, 2003 09:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.