Permanent world war crimes tribunals approved

[Wobble 1]

It is also a question of what the WTC attack falls under. Genocide and crime against humanity is pushing it a bit. I would still say that WTC was a war crime while the Pentagon was a legit target.

well what makes the WTC considered a genocidic attack is that the target was a people.. americans.. not a military target, not a political thing.. just target a monument to americans and kill as many americans as possable..

as for the pentagon.. its only a valid (as with any target) in war.. we were not at war with anyone, nor were there any hostilities with anyone.. so it was just an attack out of the blue.. plus the fact that it was carried out by a terrorist orginization kinda makes it a terrorist act..

kinda like if 3 american went over and blew up a chinese shit.. would that be a military attack? no its three terrorists

[Wobble 1]

LOL.. I just read my own post.. and attacking shit wouldent be terroristic.. it would be wierd

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is also a question of what the WTC attack falls under. Genocide and crime against humanity is pushing it a bit. I would still say that WTC was a war crime while the Pentagon was a legit target.

well what makes the WTC considered a genocidic attack is that the target was a people.. americans.. not a military target, not a political thing.. just target a monument to americans and kill as many americans as possable..<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah.. but genocide is stronger then that. Genocide is when you try to wipe out an ethnic group.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

as for the pentagon.. its only a valid (as with any target) in war.. we were not at war with anyone, nor were there any hostilities with anyone.. so it was just an attack out of the blue.. plus the fact that it was carried out by a terrorist orginization kinda makes it a terrorist act..

<span id='postcolor'>

I think that Al-Queda (or Afganistan, if you will) went to war with USA with their acts of war. Something like the Perl Harbour thingie. The problem is that AQ really don't represent any country.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

kinda like if 3 american went over and blew up a chinese shit.. would that be a military attack? no its three terrorists

<span id='postcolor'>

You mean like the bombing of the Chinese embessy in Belgrade

[barret 0]

The Greenberg Policy (by me Stephen Greenberg)

1. THE UNITED STATES SCREWS THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR CANADA, AND GOES ON THEIR OWN.

2. THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ONE IN THEIR COUNTRY EXCEPT FOR CANADIENS, AND ANY HOTT CHICKS.

3. THE UNITED STATES CAN USE ANY COURT SYSTEM[/size=3] IT DESIRES.

4. THE WORLD SHOULDN'T FORCE THE UNITED STATES TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THEY THINK

AND MORE TO COME AS MORE IDEAS FROM MY PUNK ROCK COME TO MY MIND

[red oct 2]

"Yeah.. but genocide is stronger then that. Genocide is when you try to wipe out an ethnic group." sezz who? ......just wondering

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ April 19 2002,01:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Yeah.. but genocide is stronger then that. Genocide is when you try to wipe out an ethnic group." sezz who? ......just wondering<span id='postcolor'>

"Sez" the dictionary, smartypants

[red oct 2]

genocide (jµn"…-sşd") n.

1. The systematic, planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

[Greek genos, race, -cide.]

-- gen"ocid"al (-sÅŸd"l) adj. -- gen"ocid"ally adv.

as where i was goin, genocide ISNT JUST the killing of A ethnic group but all people so it seems that ITS JUST YOUR OWN INTERPETATION ON WHAT GENOCIDE IS....................................HA

!

j/k btw

[KingBeast 0]

I always thought Genocide was killing on a grand scale. Not necessarily of any particular race/group etc

[Guest]

The point was wiping out an *entire* group. The attack on WTC doesnt qualify as that, and that was my point.

In current war crime tribunal the term genocide has been the equivalent of trying to wipe out an ethnic group. In the words literal meaning it means murder of a race (genos: people/race in greek, cćdere: 'stab', kill in latin).

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 19 2002,01:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I always thought Genocide was killing on a grand scale. Not necessarily of any particular race/group etc<span id='postcolor'>

Nope, it is about specifically targeting a group.

[red oct 2]

soo how many deaths exactly qualifies as genocide? make a nice estimate

[Tex -USMC- 0]

uh, fire good?

[Guest]

It is not a question of numbers, it is a question of intention. If the intention with the WTC had been to kill all Americans then it would have been genocide.

[KingBeast 0]

Okydoke. Denoir, dont you need more than a few deaths and intention of wiping someone out for it to be considered genocide?

[Guest]

The Geneva convention states the following:

The Legal Definition

Genocide is distinguishable from all other crimes by the motivation behind it. The Genocide Convention "confirms" that genocide is an international crime, which countries "undertake to prevent and to punish." The Convention's definition of genocide is not as broad as Lemkin's original conception. By the terms of the Convention,

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Edit: Additional definition:

"A genocide is a conspiracy aimed at the total destruction of a group and thus requires a concerted plan of action. The instigators and initiators of a genocide are cool-minded theorists first and barbarians only second. The specificity of genocide does not arise from the extent of the killings, nor their savagery or resulting infamy, but solely from the intention: the destruction of a group."

Taken from:

Frontline: The Crime of Genocide

[rpc007 0]

well the WTC fits A B and C , and u said its genocide if it fits one of them, althought i wouldnt call it genocide, more like mass murder

[Pukko 0]

Regarding US ratification tradition and genocide (yes Wobble I'm repeating myself ):

Q: Who has not ratified and why not?

A: The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so.

As in many other nations, the United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. For example, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30 years to be ratified in the United States and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was signed by the United States 17 years ago, still has not been ratified. Moreover, the US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties.

Taken from UNICEF'S Convention on the Rights of the Child FAQ

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rpc007 @ April 19 2002,01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well the WTC fits A B and C , and u said its genocide if it fits one of them, althought i wouldnt call it genocide, more like mass murder<span id='postcolor'>

No. Read again. The definiton of genocide comes from the intent behind it. The intent of WTC was not killing off any specific ethnic, racial or religious group. So it doesnt fall

under any of them. WTC was 'only' mass murder.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 19 2002,02:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rpc007 @ April 19 2002,01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well the WTC fits A B and C , and u said its genocide if it fits one of them, althought i wouldnt call it genocide, more like mass murder<span id='postcolor'>

No. Read again. The definiton of genocide comes from the intent behind it. The intent of WTC was not killing off any specific ethnic, racial or religious group. So it doesnt fall

under any of them. WTC was 'only' mass murder.<span id='postcolor'>

i bet if usa was a muslim nation 9\11would never happen

[KingBeast 0]

I bet if Germany wasnt a German nation, WW2 wouldnt have happened.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 19 2002,02:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 19 2002,023)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rpc007 @ April 19 2002,01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well the WTC fits A B and C , and u said its genocide if it fits one of them, althought i wouldnt call it genocide, more like mass murder<span id='postcolor'>

No. Read again. The definiton of genocide comes from the intent behind it. The intent of WTC was not killing off any specific ethnic, racial or religious group. So it doesnt fall

under any of them. WTC was 'only' mass murder.<span id='postcolor'>

i bet if usa was a muslim nation 9\11would  never happen<span id='postcolor'>

That is entirely besides the point. Osama bin Laden and his merry men have nothing against Americans per se. They just don't like the US involvement and influence in the mid east. The WTC attack was not about killing people, it was about making a political statement.

[Warin 0]

The WTC attacks were:

1) Mass Murder

2) Reprehensible

2) Terroristic

It was not:

Genocide

Anyone who tries to justify the opinion that the WTC attacks were genocide are really grasping at straws.

I've seen a lot of 'how much does it take to make it genocide' Well, IMNSHO opinion it takes a lot more than 3000 deaths, especially in a country of 300 million folks.

Trying to label it as a 'crime against humanity' or 'genocide' is wrong in a world where genocide happens all too often. I can understand the outrage and the anger that Americans have for those attacks. But it makes me shake my head to see the terms some people try to label them with.

[Wobble 1]

Osama bin Laden and his merry men have nothing against Americans per se

some quotes from bin-laden

We believe that the biggest thief in the world and terrorist is the American. The only way for us to fend off these assaults is to use similar means. We do not worry about American opinion or the fact that they place prices on our heads. We as Muslims believe our fate is set."

-----------------------------------

We are sure of our victory against the American and the Jew as promised by the Prophet: Judgment day shall not come until the Muslim fights the Jew, where the Jew will hide behind trees and stones, and the tree and the stone will speak and say, 'Muslim, behind me is a Jew. Come and kill him.' "

--------------------------------------

Every Muslim is to hate the Americans, the Jews, and Christians. This is part of our religion and faith. Since I become aware of things around me, I have been in a war, enmity, hatred against the Americans."

There are two parties to conflict: The first party is world Christianity, which is allied with Zionist Jewry and led by the United States, Britain, and Israel; while the second party is the Muslim world

-----------------------------------

"We differentiate between the man, the woman, the child, and the old people. The man is a fighter, whether he carries arms or helps kill us by paying taxes and by gathering information. He is a fighter . . . Our enemy, the target -- if God gives Muslims the opportunity to do so -- is every American, whether directly fighting us or paying taxes.

---------------------

you still think "bin Laden and his merry men have nothing against Americans"  ??

everything they preach, teach write and scream are about how the "great struggle" will not end untill they have wiped the capitalist pigs from the face of the earth.. thats americans and most western countries..

saying bin-laden has nothing against americans is like saying Hitler didnt have anything against jews.

the bin-laden types see americans and american socity as a EVIL.. E.V.I.L..  they see our country where you can worship any god you like as a land where the worshipping of false gods (I.E. anyone but theirs) runs rampant.  they see our 1000 channels of TVa and all our conforts as a land of decadence.. etc etc.. they hate us for WHO WE ARE..

binladen*may* personally be driven by political shit, but all his teachings and what his folowers belive and raise their children as is that westerners.. especially americans are the great satan..that WE are the terrorists.. not our military or our give.. but ALL OF US (assumin you pay taxes lol)

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, Somalia and the United States

the US already has some of not THE strictest child rights laws in the world.. chances are our laws are stricter then the ones in the convention..

and FYI the reason the US hasnt ratifyed is because it goes against our policy of charging a minor (under 18) with adult crimes and adult penalties of the crime is a premedatated murder or a brutal rape..

under the convention a minor is a minor and adult is an adult.. and punishment goes accordingley.. but in the US there are centin sever offences that can get a person under 18 tried and sentenced as an adult..

I went much more into it and posted all the details already once on the other thread.. feel free to read them there, becuase I dont feel like repeating myself again.

[Longinius 1]

"Oh, yes. You current military tribunals are the perfect example of that, right? My ass. In the international tribunal you are innocent until proven guilty, as always. It has far more rules then you current arbitrary "we will arrrest who we want" - military tribunals.

example? or are you talking about the talebannana and al-queda scum on cuba.. I would consider fighting under an army run and funded by a terrorist organization to be sufficiant evidence needed to hold someone wouldent you"

Example: Three swedish citizens (immigrants) are currently sanctioned by the UN. Their names were on the terrorist list produced by the US. They have had no trial, there has been shown no proof of their guilt and they have had ALL assets locked since the list was produced. This means no money at all. They have survived on donations from the occasional Swede.

To punish a person like this, without a trial or chance of appeal is against US law, EU law, Swedish law and basic human rights. Its even against the UN's own ideals. Yet it happens. Why? Because America says so. The three were to be taken of the list, the only nations to object to it were USA, GB and Russia. Twelve (or is it 14) other nations said they shouldn't even be on that list. These are examples of American worldwide (in)justice.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I would have to agree with wobble on that first point , Osama Bin Laden DOES seem to cherish all out hatred of all americans and westerners in general and encourages these feelings in his followers

like last time British journalist and BBC reporter John Simpson went to afghanistan (about 4 year ago) , Osama Bin Ladens band of men saw him and tried to convince the local Taliban to shoot him on sight, luckily the Taliban were too concerned of the consequences,   but it just goes to show that they want all westerners to suffer or die as long as they oppose theyre extreme views of the islamic faith, whether its a journalist, a civilian or whatever.

The idea that he only hates americas foreign or economic policy as detached from americans and westerners themselves

goes completly against the burden of evidence.

I partially agree wioth Longinius last point america seems to have reverted to WW2 style -**lock up the foreigners till the wars over**- 'justice' but then again in the state of shock america seems to have been in, one could perhaps forgive them for overreacting (or just playing it safe, from another perspective) initially, certainly i would. But this 'suspension of normal rules' doesnt seem to have any end in sight

and it seems that the US government is using this as an excuse (or an opportunity) to clamp down on groups or countries they dont like, regardless of the words or spirit of their constitution (not to mention basic rights and liberties) or international law.