Ping ATB.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

The right to the Geneva Conventions?


I'll say this for you Sarah, on a very good day you're quick!

Greg, perhaps you can explain what you meant?

Please identtify the specific Geneva Convention you are referring to and
the specific parts of the document that are being denied people in the US?


No, you ****wit, you are signatories of the Geneva Conventions and yet
you deny the citizens of nations you attack those rights. As the Geneva
Conventions are maintained by honour, trust and co-operation you have
removed the right of US citizens to be given the rights of those
conventions in any future war - as a nation you are without honour.

Think!

Greg.P.

Greg Procter wrote:
Sarah Czepiel wrote:


What Conventions specifically, groggy?



Basically; all of threm.

This one?
The 1979 Geneva Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution?

Why can't you be specific about the specific convention and the right
indicated in the conventions that Americans don't have, deue to the US
contstitution limiting our rights, as you have stated.

Greg Procter wrote:


According to the Geneva Convention, the prisoners you take while
invading countries have the right to legal representation and POW
status.

Don't these rules apply to the recognized military of a country?
Which country's soldiers are being held?

Getting back to your orignal comments about the US Constitution limiting
our rights. Even if they were members of a country's military force,
What does prisoner of war taken in another country have to do with our
rights being restricted to those listed in the US Constitution. Why
would the US Constituion have any bearing on the rights of non US
citizens NOT in another country?

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:


Our further rights are covered elsewhere,

And so are ours. That is why they are not listed, but mentioned by the
9th Amendment.



Sure, but your Bill of Rights is a founding document, ours isn't.

What difference does that make, it still doesn't restrict our rights as
you claimed?


No, it protects the rights it mentions, and alludes to those it doesn't
mention.

You made a claim that our rights are restricted by our constitution.
You fail to provide evidence of this.
In fact, Ammendment 9 clearly indicates our rights are NOT limited to
those that are itemized in the constitution.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


There's the right to the Geneva Conventions.

Are you referring to the Geneva Convention that protects members of the
recognized military of a country? Surely you don't think it applies to
terrorist groups that are not members of a country's official military.


I quite agree with you - unfortunately you yanks designate any
resistance to your foul invasion and occupation as "terrorism" which it
obviously isn't.

Which country's military forces have been denied access to the "Geneva
Convention' you speak of?


Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Really?
Are we really denying members of the official military of Afghanistan
the rights afforded by this convention? (The specific one you failed to
mention, as you don't seem to realize there have been quite a few
"Geneva Conventions") Can you please cite a source for this?



Of course, even if this was against the Geneva Convention, what does
this have to do with rights given to Americans in the US? The rights of
non Americans outside the US, has what to do with the Constitution
restricting our rights?

You stated our right to the Geneva Convention was not our right, since
it isn;t listed in the Constitution. You seem to be confusing the
rights of those inside the US with those who rights wouldn't be
protected or restriceted by the US Constitution. Their rights have
nothing to do with the US Constitution.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


The right to the Geneva Conventions?


I'll say this for you Sarah, on a very good day you're quick!

Greg, perhaps you can explain what you meant?

Please identtify the specific Geneva Convention you are referring to and
the specific parts of the document that are being denied people in the US?



No, you ****wit, you are signatories of the Geneva Conventions and yet
you deny the citizens of nations you attack those rights. As the Geneva
Conventions are maintained by honour, trust and co-operation you have
removed the right of US citizens to be given the rights of those
conventions in any future war - as a nation you are without honour.


Let's pretend for a moment, you mean the 1949 Convention.
Given the description below, do you really believe the people captured
and held at Gitmo, for example had:

1. A fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
2. Conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.

Again, please tell me what the hell any of the Geneva Convention issues
have anything to do with American rights that you claim are restricted
by the Constitution.



From the 1949 Geneva Convention:



Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons
belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the
power of the enemy:

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.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party
to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if
this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer
corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the
following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

According to the Geneva Convention, the prisoners you take while
invading countries have the right to legal representation and POW
status.

Don't these rules apply to the recognized military of a country?

You chose not to recognise them.

Which country's soldiers are being held?

Getting back to your orignal comments about the US Constitution limiting
our rights. Even if they were members of a country's military force,
What does prisoner of war taken in another country have to do with our
rights being restricted to those listed in the US Constitution. Why
would the US Constituion have any bearing on the rights of non US
citizens NOT in another country?

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Greg Procter wrote:


Our further rights are covered elsewhere,

And so are ours. That is why they are not listed, but mentioned by the
9th Amendment.



Sure, but your Bill of Rights is a founding document, ours isn't.

What difference does that make, it still doesn't restrict our rights as
you claimed?


No, it protects the rights it mentions, and alludes to those it doesn't
mention.

You made a claim that our rights are restricted by our constitution.
You fail to provide evidence of this.
In fact, Ammendment 9 clearly indicates our rights are NOT limited to
those that are itemized in the constitution.


You agree that it is a useless document and yet you make it (one of) the
founding documents of your nation.
Can you say "stupid"?

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


There's the right to the Geneva Conventions.

Are you referring to the Geneva Convention that protects members of the
recognized military of a country? Surely you don't think it applies to
terrorist groups that are not members of a country's official military.


I quite agree with you - unfortunately you yanks designate any
resistance to your foul invasion and occupation as "terrorism" which it
obviously isn't.

Which country's military forces have been denied access to the "Geneva
Convention' you speak of?


Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Really?
Are we really denying members of the official military of Afghanistan
the rights afforded by this convention?


Yes.

(The specific one you failed to
mention, as you don't seem to realize there have been quite a few
"Geneva Conventions") Can you please cite a source for this?

Of course, even if this was against the Geneva Convention, what does
this have to do with rights given to Americans in the US? The rights of
non Americans outside the US, has what to do with the Constitution
restricting our rights?

Your failing to honour your acceptance of the Geneva Conventions removes
your citizens' rights to be accorded the rights of the Geneva
Conventions in present and future wars.


You stated our right to the Geneva Convention was not our right, since
it isn;t listed in the Constitution. You seem to be confusing the
rights of those inside the US with those who rights wouldn't be
protected or restriceted by the US Constitution. Their rights have
nothing to do with the US Constitution.

Of course they do - check out that clause you keep quoting me in regards
to other rights not being restricted ...

Greg Procter wrote:


You agree that it is a useless document and yet you make it (one of) the
founding documents of your nation.
Can you say "stupid"?

The Bill of Rights was written for a new nation over 200 years ago.
It was a negotiated document. That was the reason for the enumerized
rights, as well as the reason for 9th Ammendment.
Also, the Bill of Rights are not a "founding" document.
As all ammendments to the Constitution, they are additions to the
"founding" document.


Whether you think it is stupid or not isn't the point.
You made statements indicating it limited our rights.
As evidenced by the 9th Ammendment, it doesn't.
Given the 9th Ammendment, why do you think the document limits our rights?

Your country has a similar ACT that is the Bill of Rights, which was
made LAW just 17 years ago. The ACT was written into law. Since, as you
stated, NZ doesn't have a constitution, the ACT is also an addition to
the NZ "founding document"



Both documents are similar in that they both do NOT list of all of the
rights of the people in the specific countries.

However, I doubt either one of them limits or gives any rights to non
ciizens that are located in other countries. This is yet another
tangent you went off on, when asked about rights that are restricted by
the Constitution. You then went on to say all of NZ'er rights were
restricted by our Constitution. even the rights that are clearly
indicated in the Constitution.