"Even smiling makes my face ache."

[ebonlock]

So at some point last night what I thought was just a bad allergy attack turned out to be a rather sneaky cold. It pounced on me around 11 pm and kept me up most of the night with a runny nose and sinues that threatened to burst out of my skull. Now that would've been a pretty sight for Aelf to wake up to. "Hey Ellie, why aren't you up yet, it's after se-...OH MY GOD!"

I'd attributed the general run down feeling to being tired post-houseguest as I usually am, but I guess there was a bit more to it. *sigh* I used to have an immune system that worked, I really did.

Anyway the decongestants seem to be working a bit, and a cup of hot cappuccino soothed my throat sufficiently. I know I should be drinking tea, but as much as I want to be a tea drinker I'm just not. I like teas, I love the smell of them, and I like the idea of them, but I'm just not into drinking them. *shrug*

So, got to see the first two eps of Horatio Hornblower last night and was highly entertained. I think I also managed to vastly amuse caredhel and cyranocyrano when I dismantled the afghan I'd been working on and created the biggest yarn ball ever. I'm much happier with the new version of the afghan I got about 1/3 of finished last night, and I hope my sis likes it. If nothing else it's warm and soft and that's definitely something.

Am considering sending in a piece to the Lord of the Rings Official Fan Club’s 2003 Fan Art Contest, but I'm not sure of what yet. And the entries have to be in by March 31. Is it really reasonable to expect to finish something I like by then? Hmm. I kinda liked the Frodo portrait I did, but I'm not sure it's good enough for a contest. I'll ponder this.



WASHINGTON - The intense interrogation of Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed, the suspected architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
on America who is in U.S. custody, is likely to stop just short
of torture, U.S. intelligence experts said Monday.

Source of the above quote

Good to know we're "likely to stop just short of torture", but it does make me wonder what definition they're using for "torture". Personally I thought we'd all come to the conclusion long ago that such methods were hopelessly inefficient for gathering anything even vaguely resembling useful information from prisoners, but hey, what do I know? And if we're fighting a "war on terrorism" does that mean Khalid gets POW treatment under the Geneva Convention?

Just thinking aloud...

Oh, before I forget, there will be another Anti-War march in SF on March 15th:
The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition and other organizations are calling
for an Emergency National Anti-War Convergence to TAKE IT TO THE
WHITE HOUSE on Saturday, March 15. There will be a parallel
activities in San Francisco (gather at 11 am at Civic Center
Plaza) and Los Angeles (gather 12 noon at Olympic and Broadway,
march to Downtown Federal Building).

http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/m15/index.html

I'm planning to attend this one, anyone interested in coming with?

Comments

[tyee.livejournal.com]

Aw, hope you feel better soon! I hate sinus headaches more than almost any other illness. Blecch. Feel better soon!

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Aw, hope you feel better soon! I hate sinus headaches more than almost any other illness. Blecch. Feel better soon!

Thanks, I'm planning to go directly home, take a nice hot shower, curl up in my jammies and hit the sack at a ridiculously early hour tonight. With any luck I can shake this in a couple of days (fingers crossed).

[tyee.livejournal.com]

some OJ or other vitamin-laden beverage might be helpful too!

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is not a POW under the terms of the Geneva Convention because (a) he is not a uniformed soldier, and (b) even if he were, al Qaeda is not a signatory to the treaty and doesn't abide by its terms. So he's properly classified as one of these "illegal combatants" we all keep hearing so much about.

About the march: you are aware, are you not, of who International ANSWER is?

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is not a POW under the terms of the Geneva Convention because (a) he is not a uniformed soldier, and (b) even if he were, al Qaeda is not a signatory to the treaty and doesn't abide by its terms. So he's properly classified as one of these "illegal combatants" we all keep hearing so much about.

So..um..because oh say 99.9% of terrorists aren't "uniformed soldiers" they don't qualify either? Can we technically even declare "war" without the other side having an "army"? At any rate, if I'm reading it correctly, the Convention applies to lots more folks than just "uniformed soldiers". I don't see the term "illegal combatant", though, perhaps you could point me to that particular section?

About the march: you are aware, are you not, of who International ANSWER is?

Well I know who they claim to be, and who their members believe them to be...as to who you think they are I'm utterly clueless *G*

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

Can we technically even declare "war" without the other side having an "army"?

No, we can't. Also, Congress must declare said war, not the president. Wars against non-countries aren't officially "wars" (I think that Vientam and Korea were officially "police actions" - don't forget the "War an Drugs", "War on Poverty", and the Quayle "War on Unwed Mothers").

I don't know what all the Geneva Convention applies to, but I do know that it limits the liability of my lost luggage to something like $16.21/pound for international flights. It's a convention; I don't know what teeth it has (but I do remember that the Taliban being classified as "illegal combatants" meant that they had *many* fewer rights than real POW's. Mind you, they were also distinctly nasty to their own people.).

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

No, we can't. Also, Congress must declare said war, not the president. Wars against non-countries aren't officially "wars" (I think that Vientam and Korea were officially "police actions" - don't forget the "War an Drugs", "War on Poverty", and the Quayle "War on Unwed Mothers").

So, it should be the "Police Action on Terrorism" then? I suppose that makes more sense than a war against a group without a specific country. But it does rather leave the barn door wide open, doesn't it? I mean if we don't have to play by the rules of war are there any limits on what we can and can't do?

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

I mean if we don't have to play by the rules of war are there any limits on what we can and can't do?

The only limits are what we can get away with. This is true regardless of what conventions are in force. Also note that we're lining up allies for the War On Iraq, so we're kinda creating the rules for this one as we go along - as long as enough people agree with what gets done, it's "OK".

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

The only limits are what we can get away with. This is true regardless of what conventions are in force. Also note that we're lining up allies for the War On Iraq, so we're kinda creating the rules for this one as we go along - as long as enough people agree with what gets done, it's "OK".

It was actually more of a rhetorical question. I guess I just have a problem with hypocrisy. We keep holding ourselves up as the "good guys" here, as morally superior, righteous, the white hats. And yet I can't help reading a "might makes right" message underneath it all. It kind of makes me want to go and re-read Animal Farm again...

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

Red White And Blue flags good. Other flags bad.

(Oh, wait, what did the French one look like?)

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Plain white.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

So..um..because oh say 99.9% of terrorists aren't "uniformed soldiers" they don't qualify either?

Pretty much.

Can we technically even declare "war" without the other side having an "army"?

Probably not as such.

At any rate, if I'm reading it correctly, the Convention applies to lots more folks than just "uniformed soldiers". I don't see the term "illegal combatant", though, perhaps you could point me to that particular section?

The treaty itself (http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm) does not use this term. However, Article 4 is pretty darned clear about who is and is not a POW under treaty; the relevant part would seem to be:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer cops, incliding 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 groups, including such organized resistance movements, fulfull 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.

It's fairly apparent that terrorists don't qualify for POW status, since there's no clear accountability up a recognizable chain of command, they're not uniformed troops, they hide among civilian populations, and they thumb their noses at the Geneva Convention's "gentleman's rules" of war.

Well I know who they claim to be, and who their members believe them to be...as to who you think they are I'm utterly clueless

Heh. Fair enough. :)

International ANSWER is a front group (yes, those still exist) for the World Worker's Party, which is a splinter group from the old Socialist Worker's Party. The WWP split over the 1959 Soviet invasion of Bulgaria; the SWP wasn't hardline enough. The WWP has been an apologist for every manner of atrocity committed in the name of socialism ever since, including the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Marching with these asshats doesn't make you one of them, but... well. If you lie down with dogs, you do tend to get up with fleas.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

It's fairly apparent that terrorists don't qualify for POW status, since there's no clear accountability up a recognizable chain of command, they're not uniformed troops, they hide among civilian populations, and they thumb their noses at the Geneva Convention's "gentleman's rules" of war.

One more time, 'cause I'm a little dim today (I blame the drugs), couldn't they qualify as "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", and if they don't have some sort of chain of command then why's it important to get this Khalid guy or Osama Bin Laden. I mean I thought that was kinda the point, they are organized and do have a recognizable chain of command, the upper eschelon of which we're trying to lay our hands on.

International ANSWER is a front group (yes, those still exist) for the World Worker's Party, which is a splinter group from the old Socialist Worker's Party. The WWP split over the 1959 Soviet invasion of Bulgaria; the SWP wasn't hardline enough. The WWP has been an apologist for every manner of atrocity committed in the name of socialism ever since, including the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Oh jeez, I should've seen that one coming. WWP might have been one of the intial organizers of the International ANSWER organization, but it's not some evil mastermind behind it. The organization is a coalition now, and has been since its inception. WWP may still have a voice in the movement, and sure it's got a clearly socialist agenda, but it's one voice among many. I'm going to march against war, not in favor of socialism, with a lot of other like-minded folks. I'm betting very few of them will be card-carrying Marxists.


Marching with these asshats doesn't make you one of them, but... well. If you lie down with dogs, you do tend to get up with fleas.

Hey I'm not particularly proud of every single group with an agenda in the anti-war movement, but it's not just our side that should be worrying about fleas. Remember you guys have Bob Dornan and Jerry Falwell and almost every right-wing extremist organization in the country on your side. I hope you're not in favor of most of their agendas either };)

Rocks and glass houses just don't mix well.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

One more time, 'cause I'm a little dim today (I blame the drugs), couldn't they qualify...

The difference is between irreglar troops who are accountable up a recognizable chain of command, wear uniforms, bear arms openly, and obey the rules of war; and irreglar troops that, well, don't. The former can legitimately claim POW status. The latter can't.

It seems pretty clear to me that al Qaeda falls into the latter category.

and if they don't have some sort of chain of command then why's it important to get this Khalid guy or Osama Bin Laden.

The difference, I think, is accountability. The expectation, under the Geneva Convention, is that even irregular troops are responsible to their superiors through a clear chain of command.

But even if I grant, arguendo, that Khalid or OBL are leaders accountable for the conduct of their men, for the purposes of the POW clause, al Qaeda still fails to meet muster on the other three points (i.e., uniforms, bearing arms openly, and obeying the rules of war).

Remember you guys have Bob Dornan and Jerry Falwell and almost every right-wing extremist organization in the country on your side.

Granted, but the difference here being that even if can I find common cause with these tools on certain issues, I don't march with them and thereby help them claim leadership of a broad ideological cross-section of America. I'm sure you (like me) wouldn't march alongside Nazis or Klansmen, no matter whether they happened to agree with you on the issue of the day; why do Stalinists get a free pass?

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Granted, but the difference here being that even if can I find common cause with these tools on certain issues, I don't march with them and thereby help them claim leadership of a broad ideological cross-section of America. I'm sure you (like me) wouldn't march alongside Nazis or Klansmen, no matter whether they happened to agree with you on the issue of the day; why do Stalinists get a free pass?

Let me change the question slightly, if there was to be an organized pro-war march/rally/what-have-you, and you wanted to support it, would you choose not to do so because one of the organizations involved was, say, the Chrisitan Coalition? Does that one group's involvement negate the overall movement?

And I think comparing the WWP to Nazis is a bit much, but again, it's one group among many. I may not entirely agree with the WWP or with socialism as a viable political viewpoint in the world today, but I'm afraid I don't automatically label them "evil".

You get the difference between the different forms of socialism, right? The WWP aren't Stalinists, they're Marxists and totally up front about it. I mean it's easier to compare them to Nazis if you mis-label them, but it's not quite factual. Personally I think their views are a bit closer to "Utopian Socialism" myself, but their politics are certainly Marxist right down the line.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Let me change the question slightly, if there was to be an organized pro-war march/rally/what-have-you, and you wanted to support it, would you choose not to do so because one of the organizations involved was, say, the Chrisitan Coalition?

Yeah, actually. :} This is why, though I agree (in broad strokes) with the "right wing coalition" on issues like gun control, you won't catch me dead marching or protesting with them. The people involved have crapped on the moral carpet far too often, and I don't want to get my shoes dirty.

And I think comparing the WWP to Nazis is a bit much, but again, it's one group among many. I may not entirely agree with the WWP or with socialism as a viable political viewpoint in the world today, but I'm afraid I don't automatically label them "evil".

The WWP, regardless of how it self-identifies ideologically, supports murderous socialist regimes the world over. The WWP has been unwavering in its support for Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, Kim Il Jung, Saddam Hussein, and the People's Republic of China, regardless of the body count. The WWP has gone so far as to claim that nobody actually died at the Tiananmen Square massacre, and that Saddam Hussein never gassed the Kurds, putting itself in the same moral category as Holocaust deniers. If this doesn't make them as evil as the Nazis, I don't know what does.

I'm not certain how you'd care to define the difference between Marxism and Stalinism. What I do know is that these people are proponents of and apologists for the same kind of murder and tyranny that was employed by communist leaders in the Soviet Union under the rubric of Marxism/socialism.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Yeah, actually. :} This is why, though I agree (in broad strokes) with the "right wing coalition" on issues like gun control, you won't catch me dead marching or protesting with them. The people involved have crapped on the moral carpet far too often, and I don't want to get my shoes dirty.

Hey, fair enough.

I'm not certain how you'd care to define the difference between Marxism and Stalinism. What I do know is that these people are proponents of and apologists for the same kind of murder and tyranny that was employed by communist leaders in the Soviet Union under the rubric of Marxism/socialism.

And if you can find me some of their official organizational statements that support the allegations I'll probably agree with you. However, I'm not talking about quotes taken from right-wing opponents that equate Communism/Marxism with evil. How those ideologies have been put into practice, well that's another discussion. But again, gimme me clear evidence that this is their stand, preferably from the horse's mouth, and that International ANSWER is just a front for the WWP. I'm willing to keep an open mind on this, and like I say, I'm always ready to learn something new.

[mallen.livejournal.com]

It is my sincere hope that the U.S. neither uses nor sanctions the use of "near-torture" on any captive it holds, whether that person's legal status is "P.O.W." or "unlawful combatant."

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

It is my sincere hope that the U.S. neither uses nor sanctions the use of "near-torture" on any captive it holds, whether that person's legal status is "P.O.W." or "unlawful combatant."

Amen, brother, amen.
BTW, if our sad excuse for a peach tree actually manages to produce fruit this year can you use any of them? Between trimming it back, fertilizing, and keeping it watered I'm hoping we'll get more than the nobbly little pellets we ended up with last year.

[mallen.livejournal.com]

I have this amazing recipe for "baked peaches stuffed with almonds." So, if you give me some, and you want to taste these peaches, let me know. :)

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

I have this amazing recipe for "baked peaches stuffed with almonds." So, if you give me some, and you want to taste these peaches, let me know. :)

I am suddenly very inspired to make that peach tree produce }:)