A day to day acount of the whacky and wonderful world of Muggaz - i tend to be having too much fun these days, and often cannot remember moments due to debauchery - its time the internet repayed my loyalty by recording my antics.
State before Self?
Published on September 1, 2004 By Muggaz In Politics
The fervour of the Olympics have died down, the patriotism of those countries that did well have not. Over the last few days, I have no doubt that I love my country, and the reasons I love my country are for all to see – however there are plenty of reasons why I should always question those that lead my country, and I will refuse to be blinded by patriotism.

Collectively, Australia is a spirited nation, depicted by the surf, sun and sand – laid back and care free, however we have the dark spectre of our colonial past, with various act’s committed by previous governments that should be, and are, held in contempt. The thing I love about Australia is that we can admit these grievances occurred, and as a nation, we are always moving forward. While cooperatively we are interested in the development of our nation, there will always be that sense of self which is evident in any western culture – self improvement and individualism, personal development, no matter your class, creed, or race.

This brings me to my next point. It’s a big one, and certainly open to interpretation, as the written word always is – my greif is with the P-P-P-Patriot act of the United States of America. Traditionally, I would argue when it comes to patriotism, no one loves their country more than the average American citizen. Australians love their country, but you don’t see flags posted out the front of every second house, and we don’t have figures or gimmicks if you will, like Uncle Sam – well, the boxing Kangaroo can be classed as a gimmick, but the boxing Kangaroo doesn’t need YOU for war – if you know what I mean.

The Patriot act walks all over everything Americans hold dear about their great country – home of the brave and land of the ‘free.’ From the moment an American is born, they are watched by the hawks, or bald eagles, whichever you want to say, I know it’s easy from the outside looking in, but the whole notion of American patriotism appears very authoritarian to me – a state before self if you will.

I am fortunate to know many Americans, some I hold dear, and some not so dear, but the simple fact of the matter is, in America’s eyes, the Patriot act is a good thing because essentially it was created to protect civilians from horrific events such as 9/11 – this tells me a lot about the average American – as long as their personal rights aren’t infringed upon, they don’t really care about the rights of others.

Americans are always having cracks at the French for their justice system, cheesy odours, whatever. In France, you are guilty until proven innocent. The USA is held in high esteem for the free and choice filled image it conveys, however, the rights and freedoms that so many US troops are dying for are being infringed upon with this Patriot act – suspicion should not be enough to invoke the act, hence rendering the liberties Americans hold dear useless.

America is regarded as the leader of the free world, this was true to me before the Patriot act, however, now I am not so sure. With the state before self ideology, the general American is happy with the Patriot act – the average American has nothing to hide from the government, besides, it would be futile as the government has been watching since birth anyway – immigrants come to America for the right to be treated as a normal person, they take American citizenship so they too can enjoy the rights Americans ‘enjoy’. These rights no longer seem attractive.

The Americans aren’t entirely to blame for the Patriot act though – it’s unfortunate that people like the 9/11 hijackers utilised these civil liberties, and used them to spit in the face of America – but when America takes these liberties away based on suspicion, the entire American value system is brought into question. It’s ironic that it is called the patriot act – Americans are patriotic because their country is great – there are only a few countries in the world where you can make yourself with hard work, where you have the liberties to do and say what you want – America is one of these countries, or was one of these countries, until they were attacked because of the very values they are destroying.

Its hard for me to see where America will head towards in the next few years – what their social conscience will say in the back of their heads, based on what I know of America, granted, it may be not so much, though, I do see Americans following their commander and chief just because of the office he represents. It is my honest opinion that America has a problem with personal integrity going out the window because the president says it’s ok – respect the office, not the man, all that kind of talk. The president of the United States of America should command tremendous respect – when the office represents traditional American values of the family and fair go.

Maybe if Australia was attacked in the same fashion, our government would try to try and pass a similar act through our senate, however, I believe such an act would not get of the ground based on the traditional Australian values of giving everyone a fair chance, and you truly are innocent until proven guilty. Australians need to protect their interests by maintaining our national identity, and to maintain out national identity, we need to be consistent with our personal identities – Australia is a beautiful and great country, but my integrity will always come before my countries, and hopefully that holds true for our population, we wont be blindly led by the red white and blue of any flag, state before self sounds like a policy from authoritarian China – there are bad people everywhere in the world, but when you stop trusting the good on their account, it’s an inevitable decline in all that countries like America are perceived to represent.

BAM!!!

Comments (Page 6)
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 
on Sep 11, 2004
Thanks, Gideon, and it sad to see that Socialism is so socially accepted as being good for an individualistic society such as a Democracy should be, it needs to be changed. Need to root out all socialist roots out of our country.

FEUER FREI!
on Sep 11, 2004
I am with you all the way, Muggaz.

As to your critics, since they say that all those governmental rights to intrude already existed, I guess we all agree: We can just dump the Patriot Act, eh?

Other countries have the equivalent? Hmm, sounds like a shopping expedition around the western world, grabbing the most repressive aspects from each country, and thereby thinking that this justifies importing such garbage. Last I heard, we led the way with "democratic" government and I would much prefer to keep it that way.

The stench of hypocrisy is all over this piece of legislation. The party that has long preached limiting government uses the pretext of a terrorist attack to push through the Patiotic Act, at a time when most of the nation felt that whatever the commander in chief wanted, he must get. If only our commander in chief had been thinking more about getting his hands on bin Laden, rather than on our citizens' freedoms.
on Sep 11, 2004

The police haven't started, but what else is Guantanamo Bay?


Gitmo is a POW camp.  Big difference.


 

on Sep 11, 2004

The police haven't started, but what else is Guantanamo Bay?


Gitmo is a POW camp.  Big difference.


 

on Sep 11, 2004
Other countries have the equivalent? Hmm, sounds like a shopping expedition around the western world, grabbing the most repressive aspects from each country, and thereby thinking that this justifies importing such garbage. Last I heard, we led the way with "democratic" government and I would much prefer to keep it that way.


Two words : National Security

and Muggaz is Australian
on Sep 13, 2004
Guantanamo is NOT a POW camp. The US have made that clear. POW's have very distinct rights as set down int he Geneva convetion. The US does not want to give those rights and so refused to classify the prisoners as POWS. Of course they also fail to grant the rights which non pow combattants are entitled to, but that's another story.

Paul.
on Sep 13, 2004
Of course they also fail to grant the rights which non pow combattants are entitled to, but that's another story.


Another story in the same book.

Thanks Paul.

BAM!!!
on Sep 13, 2004
Of course they also fail to grant the rights which non pow combattants are entitled to, but that's another story.


Please send a link on this. I just want to be informed. Because in the constitution their is no right. to foriegners. I'm not picking on you, I just would like to see who is giving these rights.
on Sep 13, 2004
War Criminals have no rights what so ever, if your captors treat you by the standards of the Geneva Convention, which the US did not sign, than be thankful they are treating you in such a way.

SEAR School teaches you that being a War Criminal is drastically different than being a Prisoner of War, rules do not apply to War Criminals, and that is what is in Gitmo, though considering it's the United States, they are being treated as best the can, but must not pamper there every needs or that would ruin the intelligence investigation process delaying that person even longer from getting released or tried.

Seriously please check into intelligence SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) and the US SOP for the treatment of War Criminals before saying that War Criminals have rights in the least.

BOOM! BOOM!
on Sep 13, 2004

I have no problem with the Patriot Act if it means that the US can possibly find terrorists living in the country before they have a chance to do something (remember, the terrorists from 9/11 were living in the US).


The FBI and any other enforcement agency is free to rifle through my records, I have nothing to hide..  It's not like there is real privacy, anyway.  Do you know that employers can pull your credit history?  Talk about a lot of information being made available.


People want it both ways- they don't want the government to have information, or to step on a few "rights", yet they will blame the government if they didn't "protect" them.  Which is more important?

on Sep 14, 2004
Lee1776,
I've written an article on this before quoting the exact passages from the Geneva convention which cover this issue.

http://solitair.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=7442

It's fairly old now and much has changed in the US courts in the meantime, granting the detainees many of the rights which they were being denied. Still not quite meeting the requirements of the articles the US has signed though.


ShoZan,
try reading the same link I've provided above. Laws do apply to war criminals as clearly stated in conventions signed (and in many cases written) by the US. Of course if you want to argue that the US should cancel/withdraw it's signatory from the Geneva convention, then that's another issue.

Paul.
on Sep 14, 2004
Good artical Paul.

I do have a question though.

Did the US realy sign this? Cause if we did, somebody at the state department needs to be fired. What year was this added?

There maybe another artical dealing with Spy, Sabtours, assassins, and other types, because when I receive my annual Geneva Convention brief, this is not part of it.

We never complained to Germany when our agents had been shot, but we did when soldiers were. (in fact we shot eight German prisoners, after the killing of prisoners dure Battle of the Bulge).

But good post Paul.
on Sep 14, 2004

Reply #86 By: Solitair - 9/14/2004 5:56:14 AM
Lee1776,
I've written an article on this before quoting the exact passages from the Geneva convention which cover this issue.

http://solitair.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=7442

It's fairly old now and much has changed in the US courts in the meantime, granting the detainees many of the rights which they were being denied. Still not quite meeting the requirements of the articles the US has signed though.


ShoZan,
try reading the same link I've provided above. Laws do apply to war criminals as clearly stated in conventions signed (and in many cases written) by the US. Of course if you want to argue that the US should cancel/withdraw it's signatory from the Geneva convention, then that's another issue.

Paul.


Dude from what I understand the US "never" signed the second set of protocols. And BTW "here's how they're getting around it.
Check the last sentence.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAWS OF WAR

Attempts to put limits on wartime behavior have been around since the beginning of recorded history and there have been numerous attempts to codify the rules of appropriate military conduct.

In the sixth century BCE, Chinese warrior Sun Tzu suggested putting limits on the way that wars were conducted.

Around 200 BCE, the notion of war crimes as such appeared in the Hindu code of Manu.

In 1305, the Scottish national hero Sir William Wallace was tried for the wartime murder of civilians.

Hugo Grotius wrote "On the Law of War and Peace" in 1625, focusing on the humanitarian treatment of civilians.

In 1865, Confederate officer Henry Wirz was executed for murdering Federal prisoners of war at the Andersonville prisoner of war camp. He was only one of several people who were tried for similar offenses.

In fact, it's been the past century and a half that has really seen a qualitative jump in the degree to which constraints have been placed on warring parties, and only this century that an international body has been formed to police the nations of the world.

The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.

In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.

The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in 1954, the United Nations Convention on Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques followed in 1977, together with two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extending their protections to civil wars.

There is no one "Geneva Convention." Like any other body of law, the laws of war have been assembled piecemeal, and are, in fact, still under construction.

It is impossible to produce a complete and up-to-date list of war crimes. Even today, weapon systems such as land mines are being debated at the highest levels of international policy.

What follows is a basic reference to the most common protections and prohibitions, as provided for in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the two 1977 protocols.



International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians.

The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians.

Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a sholdier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

on Sep 14, 2004
I beleive the US did indeed adopt this treaty in 1977, and it came into force in 1979 when enough signatories were achieved.

In fact the US was the primary force behind the treaty after vietnam and other conflicts revealed problems and loopholes in the initial convention. Special forces, spies, sabateurs, medical personel, were all not covered properly in the original 1948 convention (note this original convention was after WW2!), and so this extra protocol was later added.

Spies are dealt with in article 46.


Paul.
on Sep 14, 2004

Reply #89 By: Solitair - 9/14/2004 11:14:04 AM
I beleive the US did indeed adopt this treaty in 1977, and it came into force in 1979 when enough signatories were achieved.

In fact the US was the primary force behind the treaty after vietnam and other conflicts revealed problems and loopholes in the initial convention. Special forces, spies, sabateurs, medical personel, were all not covered properly in the original 1948 convention (note this original convention was after WW2!), and so this extra protocol was later added.

Spies are dealt with in article 46.


Paul.


I stand corrected to a point! We DID sign them but they were NEVER ratified by the US which means that they are non- binding! Check the link!

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/party_gc/$File/Conventions%20de%20GenSve%20et%20Protocoles%20additionnels%20ENG-logo.pdf


You will need Adobe Acrbat to read the document. The list is in alphabetical order, scroll down till you see the US of A.
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7