A new resolution introduced in the US Senate offers political backing to the Bush administration by slamming a United Nations effort to exert more influence over the Internet. At the heart of this international political spat is the unique influence that the US federal government enjoys over Internet addresses and the master database of top-level domain names - a legacy of the Internet's origins years ago. The Bush administration recently raised objections to the proposed addition of .xxx as a red-light district for pornographers, for instance, a veto power that no other government is able to wield.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:what? you mean people caught in the battlefield not in uniform and not fighting for a military? they should have been shot according to the geneva conventions. Not wearing a uniform when fighting is a serious crime because it puts civillians at risk. Of course, dont let the facts get in the way of hating America.
--------------------------------------
err? what! geneva conventions, do you understand anything about that and why you are showing your lack of understanding when you say they should have being shot according to the convention
again I ask, what are you taught over there?
Member since:
Member since:actually, i cant believe you euros are so ignorant. here is the text of GC III.
Art 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Art 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines who is a prisoner of war and, therefor, a protected person under GCIII. Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.6 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.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
care to explain how Al-Queda fulfills these? i cant even believe you people actually accept the trash your giv tells you. all the more reason why you shoudl have no control over the internet that i use.
Member since:
Member since:
"Do you remember Guantanamo"
what? you mean people caught in the battlefield not in uniform and not fighting for a military? they should have been shot according to the geneva conventions. Not wearing a uniform when fighting is a serious crime because it puts civillians at risk. Of course, dont let the facts get in the way of hating America.