Downing Street listens to the people!

BillieTheBot · January 2007

...and then promptly ignores them. As illustrated nicely here.

Not quite sure why they set up a petition website just to ignore everyone, but I suppose that's Princess Tony for you. He'll listen to you if you agree with him; if you don't agree with him he'll just ignore everything you say.

Pinochet and Saddam dead- here's hoping 2007 will kill off the war criminal PM of this country!

Former Member · January 2007

I hardly think you can compre the 3.

Tony Blai ISN'T war criminal. Thats a fact but I can guess th efeelings on here about this kinda subject so I wont be having a massive debate or owt. Just saying what I know.

Former Member · January 2007

People in the US got today off because of Ford dying, if Blair died do you think we'd get a day off? If so I might have a pop.

Former Member · January 2007

budda wrote:

People in the US got today off because of Ford dying, if Blair died do you think we'd get a day off? If so I might have a pop.

Not everyone got a day off. Clicky.

Ford was once Head of State, Prime Ministers are not Heads of State and as such state funerals for PMs are unusual. (Of those who weren't at one point Head of State and who received state funerals there is only Gladstone, Churchill and a few others). I think though if a PM died in office they might be given a state funeral, or if they were a particularly notable PM - hence Churchill and Gladstone. (And Disraeli being offered but declining one prior to his death)

Former Member · January 2007

John Smith died as leader of the opposition in 1994 but I don't recall of any time that the prime minister died while in office.

Former Member · January 2007

The honour of a state funeral is usually reserved for the Sovereign as Head of State and the current or past Queen Consort. Few others have had them:

* Sir Philip Sydney (1586)
* Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson (1806)
* Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (1852)
* Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (1865)
* The Rt Hon. William Gladstone (1898)
* Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts of Kandahar (1914)
* Edward Carson, Baron Carson (1935)
* The Rt Hon. Sir Winston Churchill (1965)\

Diana, Princess of Wales, a former royal when she died in 1997, had a ceremonial funeral similar to a state funeral. Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield was offered the honour of a state funeral, but refused it.

The most famous state funeral was that of a commoner—Churchill in 1965. The only difference between his state funeral and that of the Sovereign was the gun salute—prime ministers get a 19-gun salute, as a head of government.

I don't think Mr Blair has done anything to warrant him having a state funeral. At all.

Skive · January 2007

Kermit wrote:

...and then promptly ignores them. As illustrated nicely here.

Legal aid for everybody is something I think this country was doing right.

Former Member · January 2007

Doomsday wrote:

Tony Blai ISN'T war criminal.

Isn't he? I thought the War on Iraq was a violation of international law (although it as been contested)... And it could be argued that Guantanamo is in breach of the Geneva convention.

As far as the USA are concerned, doesn't the useage os phosphorous weapons breach the Geneva convention?

Former Member · January 2007

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

Isn't he? I thought the War on Iraq was a violation of international law

The Iraq War was not a violation of 'international law.'

Former Member · January 2007

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

Isn't he? I thought the War on Iraq was a violation of international law (although it as been contested)...?

As you note uncontested

And it could be argued that Guantanamo is in breach of the Geneva convention.

Gitmo is outside the Geneva convention, so it couldn't be argued at all (though you can argue it on other grounds). Anyway I'm not sure TB can be held accountable for that.

As far as the USA are concerned, doesn't the useage os phosphorous weapons breach the Geneva convention

No, probably not.

Former Member · January 2007

International law isnt for leaders like Blair and Bush though, its for the little countries with no power.

Its the same kind of reason that Spain can continually break its obligations under the UN treaty on refugees and get away with it.

Former Member · January 2007

Flashman's Ghost wrote:

Gitmo is outside the Geneva convention, so it couldn't be argued at all (though you can argue it on other grounds). Anyway I'm not sure TB can be held accountable for that.

How is it outside the Geneva convention? Again, another big debate.

As you note uncontested

So you think that it was legitimate? How so?

Former Member · January 2007

The Geneva convention can only apply to combatants within a war - the question in law is whether or not the American term used to justify breaking the Geneva Conventions - 'unlawful combatants' has any meaning, and if its judgement of how this is reached breaks the Geneva Convention.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Under the Geneva convention a detainee may be asked for name, rank and serial number and they may not use other means to extract further information - including promises of rewards, intimidation or torture.

It's name, rank, serial number - that's it. They can ask other things, but they can't use any threat, intimidation or torture to do it.

Now they arguement that someone isn't really a real solider (despite this being called a 'War on terror') can only be decided by a 'competent tribunal' for each and every prisoner. Until that concludes differently they are required to treat people as a prisoner covered by the Geneva convention.

In addition no prisoner

The current 1997 Pentagon policy on determining prisoner status is the following -

"all captives shall be treated humanely under the Geneva Protocols until their status is determined by a screening tribunal of three commissioned officers. They require that a written record be made of the proceedings, that the prisoner be advised of his rights, be allowed to attend the sessions, can have an interpreter, can call witnesses and that his status shall be determined by a majority vote based on a preponderance of evidence."

The blanket decision of the American administration to subjectively treat all prisoners as 'illegal combatants' based on battlefield screening:

http://valletta.usembassy.gov/guantanamo.html

and then to offer once imprisoned a chance of review would seem to be in breach, or at least in ignorance of the current convention. Simply put - it should be illegal to conduct any form of interrogation beyond name, rank and serial number, until after a tribunal has declared the combatant to be no longer constrained by the Geneva convention - a battlefield judgement should not be allowed to provide this status.

This would suggest an illegal method of treating prisoners.

In addition the subjective nature of terms like 'illegal combatant' is very strange - if you say it's a war, and you say you are fighting someone, and they are captured in the war zone - how are they 'illegal combatants' anyway?

If they are then they can not be placed on trial, they must be released as soon as the war ends enless there is specific evidence of individual participation in war crime (as in the case of the Holocaust).

In addition if the Geneva convention no longer applies, and if the people are not combatants - then what law do they exsist under. The only logical one would be the law of the detaining power - but clearly the prisoners in Guantanamo are not being offered the same legal recourses provided to US prisoners.

Anyway, bit of a sidetrack, but a pretty vital element within this.

Former Member · January 2007

Mind you, that's not to say I believe as a result Blair is guilty. From a personal viewpoint I'd have to say Blair's guilt, if any, would have to lie with the justification for the invasion and the complicty in extra-ordinary rendition. It's almost impossible to imagine any judgement of prisoner status being effectively done and the suggested level of torture in the Eastern European camps would seem to be highly illegal.

Former Member · January 2007

Jim V wrote:

The Geneva convention can only apply to combatants within a war - the question in law is whether or not the American term used to justify breaking the Geneva Conventions - 'unlawful combatants' has any meaning, and if its judgement of how this is reached breaks the Geneva Convention.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Under the Geneva convention a detainee may be asked for name, rank and serial number and they may not use other means to extract further information - including promises of rewards, intimidation or torture.

It's name, rank, serial number - that's it. They can ask other things, but they can't use any threat, intimidation or torture to do it.

Now they arguement that someone isn't really a real solider (despite this being called a 'War on terror') can only be decided by a 'competent tribunal' for each and every prisoner. Until that concludes differently they are required to treat people as a prisoner covered by the Geneva convention.

In addition no prisoner

The current 1997 Pentagon policy on determining prisoner status is the following -

"all captives shall be treated humanely under the Geneva Protocols until their status is determined by a screening tribunal of three commissioned officers. They require that a written record be made of the proceedings, that the prisoner be advised of his rights, be allowed to attend the sessions, can have an interpreter, can call witnesses and that his status shall be determined by a majority vote based on a preponderance of evidence."

The blanket decision of the American administration to subjectively treat all prisoners as 'illegal combatants' based on battlefield screening:

http://valletta.usembassy.gov/guantanamo.html

and then to offer once imprisoned a chance of review would seem to be in breach, or at least in ignorance of the current convention. Simply put - it should be illegal to conduct any form of interrogation beyond name, rank and serial number, until after a tribunal has declared the combatant to be no longer constrained by the Geneva convention - a battlefield judgement should not be allowed to provide this status.

This would suggest an illegal method of treating prisoners.

In addition the subjective nature of terms like 'illegal combatant' is very strange - if you say it's a war, and you say you are fighting someone, and they are captured in the war zone - how are they 'illegal combatants' anyway?

If they are then they can not be placed on trial, they must be released as soon as the war ends enless there is specific evidence of individual participation in war crime (as in the case of the Holocaust).

In addition if the Geneva convention no longer applies, and if the people are not combatants - then what law do they exsist under. The only logical one would be the law of the detaining power - but clearly the prisoners in Guantanamo are not being offered the same legal recourses provided to US prisoners.

Anyway, bit of a sidetrack, but a pretty vital element within this.

The US also tried to redefine what torture is, including trying to pass water boarding (not a sport, but when somebody restrains a person and pours water on their face to simulate them drowning... Very cruel) to make it legal.

Former Member · January 2007

At the risk of diverting into a techie discussion of the Geneva Convention whilst illegal combatants aren't covered, Article 4 covers those who are legal combatants and are entitled to be treated as PWs

Arguably the Taliban and others captured don't fall into any of the categories (they are not regular soldiers, nor do they fall under sub-section 2 as they do not always carry weapons openly, have a fixed distinctive sign or conduct there operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war).

You could possibly argue that Iraqi militants fall under section 6 (though again you fall foul of the carrying arms openly and conduct of war clauses).

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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

I'm not sure that Gitmo is legal under US civilian or military law, but I'm not convinced that the detainees are protected under the Geneva Convention. The problem with the Geneva Convention is that its very much based on state vs state warfare (and with both those states sticking to it) rather than terrorism, guerilla warfare and types of insurgency, where different rules may apply.

The trouble with that is that few states are keen for it to be widened so that there becomes a risk that something like ETA or PIRA have to be treated as military POWs rather than civilian criminals.

Now they arguement that someone isn't really a real solider (despite this being called a 'War on terror') can only be decided by a 'competent tribunal' for each and every prisoner. Until that concludes differently they are required to treat people as a prisoner covered by the Geneva convention.

The Geneva Convention does not state in great detail what a competent tribunal,its certainly arguable that it can be a military panel.

http://valletta.usembassy.gov/guantanamo.html

Detainees held by the Department of Defense are screened thoroughly, beginning at the point of capture, and later at the theater detention facilities, and their individual cases are reviewed periodically thereafter. These processes are designed to ensure we only hold those who pose a continuing threat. Once at Guantanamo Bay, each detainee has his status regularly reviewed by a military panel.

Former Member · January 2007

The issue though is that the prisoners have been defined as illegal combatants BEFORE a tribunal has taken place - the very next section (article 5) defines it as follows.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The tribunals occured afterwards, but under article 5, they should have automatically been declared as POW's until the tribunal took place.

Former Member · January 2007

But they were also screened at the point of capture, at theater detention facilties (where my understanding is that they are treated as PWs) and then periodically reviewed.

About 10,000 enemy combatants have been captured, just under 500 remain and about 250 have been released.

http://valletta.usembassy.gov/guantanamo.html

By my reckoning that means only 7.5% have gone to Gitmo, so some sort of screening or competent tribunal to decide who goes where.

To be fair I think the US is breaking the Geneva Convention in spirit. I'm certainly off the view that the Taliban should be treated as PWs (if only for the amusement value of making them salute the camp commander) (Article 39). I'm not convinced they are actually breaking it by the letter of the law.

Former Member · January 2007

Yeah, I'd agree with you - I don't believe battlefield screening is acceptable under the description of article 5 - but the US do. So in their eyes its legal, in mine it's not acceptable otherwise require a second assessment later.

But, yeah, back to Blair

Former Member · January 2007

Jim V wrote:

But, yeah, back to Blair

Does the Geneva Convention permit non-combatants to hijack threads ?

Former Member · January 2007

Kermit wrote:

Not quite sure why they set up a petition website just to ignore everyone, but I suppose that's Princess Tony for you. He'll listen to you if you agree with him; if you don't agree with him he'll just ignore everything you say.

There have been recent allegations that names are being removed from petitions.

Not surprising.

Former Member · January 2007

I don't think the war in Iraq was even wrong.

the strategy used was wrong and you could argue the strategy for coutnries going into this war was wrong.

but I dont think you could ever say clear cut, this war was wrong and illegal and all that other jazz. Its juts not that simple and certainly not techincally so.

Former Member · January 2007

Doomsday wrote:

I don't think the war in Iraq was even wrong.

the strategy used was wrong and you could argue the strategy for coutnries going into this war was wrong.

but I dont think you could ever say clear cut, this war was wrong and illegal and all that other jazz. Its juts not that simple and certainly not techincally so.

Why don't you think it was wrong?

And why is it "not that simple"?

Former Member · January 2007

because it wasn't and it isn't.

Saying "Boo ya suck, big, eveil government" does not make it true.

it wasn't wrong, it was a strategy. A different perspective. You can't say its wrong. It wasn't illegal either so its not legally wrong.

under no defination does it come under as wrong.

Former Member · January 2007

Doomsday wrote:

because it wasn't and it isn't.

Saying "Boo ya suck, big, eveil government" does not make it true.

it wasn't wrong, it was a strategy. A different perspective. You can't say its wrong. It wasn't illegal either so its not legally wrong.

under no defination does it come under as wrong.

Nice in depth answer. :rolleyes:

Former Member · January 2007

you can write a thesis on here but it won't make a difference to people who won't listen or just to "mock" others replies.

Plus this issue is pretty nigh over. I think opinions are so far engrained now that no1 could ever convince the other of an opposite point of view.

Former Member · January 2007

Kermit wrote:

Not quite sure why they set up a petition website just to ignore everyone, but I suppose that's Princess Tony for you. He'll listen to you if you agree with him; if you don't agree with him he'll just ignore everything you say.

Yes, but Blair has form when it comes to ignoring what people say. The biggest example of which was the time when over a million people descended on the streets of London to protest against the march into an inevitable, illegal and bloody war. The fool probably thought they were there to support the decision. Blair's self-delusion knows no boundaries these days. He can convince himself that anything's true. Shame he can't convince anyone else.

budda wrote:

People in the US got today off because of Ford dying, if Blair died do you think we'd get a day off?

I suspect I won't be the only one saying "good riddance" and popping open a bottle of champagne when that happens. Lefties all around the country will probably do so when Thatcher passes away, I'm pretty sure of it. The unions would have a field day, and I doubt they'd miss Blair very much either.

Former Member · January 2007

stargalaxy wrote:

YThe biggest example of which was the time when over a million people descended on the streets of London to protest against the march into an inevitable, illegal and bloody war.

... and about 59m people didn't go. So does that mean that the majority didn't believe in the march?

Point on this is to ask what number of people have to go to a march to make it "relevant" and not just open to accusations of being a minority protest which might just as well be one man and his dog.

Former Member · January 2007

Man Of Kent wrote:

... and about 59m people didn't go. So does that mean that the majority didn't believe in the march?

Point on this is to ask what number of people have to go to a march to make it "relevant" and not just open to accusations of being a minority protest which might just as well be one man and his dog.

And just how do you get all 60 million or so of Britain's citizens to attend one place in Central London all on the same day?

Former Member · January 2007

stargalaxy wrote:

And just how do you get all 60 million or so of Britain's citizens to attend one place in Central London all on the same day?

Whatever you think about the Iraq War stargalaxy you will find that immediately prior to the war and for a long time after, it was supported by a majority of the population. (At least according to most pollsters).

The Countryside Alliance and anti-war campaigners may have been able to get huge turn-outs (unprecedented in fact) but to automatically deduce that because a protest is big, it has majority public support does not make sense.

Former Member · January 2007

Just like an extensive, well conducted poll is a good indication of the general sentiments of the country, so is a demonstration.

The Feb. 2003 demo was the biggest in the history of Britain and an excellent indication of what the people of this country thought about the war.

To say 'well 58 million weren't there to support the action' is breathtakingly simplistic and absurd.

Downing Street listens to the people!

Comments