Red Cross Finds Bush Administration Guilty of War Crimes

Originally posted by mental modulator
Dude you I brought you some facts in my last post _ I took some time to continue our debate and argue my points, did my last post mess you up ???

No, it did not mess me up.
I just don't have time currently to go through the entire Patriot Act to refute your arguments point by point. I am fairly confident that there are more descriptions which clarify some of the snippets you used. I'll try and get to it soon. However, in the meantime, let me know when a U.S. citizen here in the states gets arrested for being a terrorist because of a phone call, yet is totally innocent, but the government convicts the person anyway.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
Since when is the Red Cross a judiciary body capable of finding anybody guilty of anything?

What does that matter??? So you are also saying that the alleged criminality does not matter because the reporting body is not a judicial body?

So you would not be guilty of a hit and run accident if a civilian is the one who witnesses the event???

The civilian is not a judicial body- tough crap!!!

I guess that means that you didn't commit a crime - in fact you did not even hit the alleged car because a civilian was the witness to the accident.

Non logic --- Give us some logic and we all can have a real conversation!

Not this mouthpiece off competitive event...

Next I will give us all a list of War crimes first reported on by the red cross ---

Will you take the side of the president of IRAN on WWII because the red cross is not a judicial entity? Guess who first raised the issues of German activities?

I guess nothing is provable unless John Roberts is not there to confirm.

What do you say you look at the title of thr thread, read my post, then get a dictionary and look up "context" and then put all that together?

U>G... The very first four lines of my post/response confirm that I am in agreement with your statement... I should have said ( "Yes, but what does that matter"???) for the sake of clarity.

If you would have looked at the entire context of all the posts you would understand that my statements were not out of context at all. In short-- I was trying to explain that the accusations could not be proven or dis-proven with the information provided. Further more I was arguing that it was not logical to FULLY discount the validity of the charges based upon cherry picked arguments. Nobody here has an eye witness perspective of the events, charges or "report". So an ultimate and reality based conclusion can not be reached!
I had eleven posts up to that point and their was a heated back and forth. You jumped into a rather inflammatory debate that had evolved beyond the initial OP thread!
Your one liner was relevant to my argument, you would be aware if you would read "back". ATS promote discussion I was using this tool in its intended purpose!

Once again, a rapid idiot has no real concept of what he is writing about.

The Red Cross can not find anyone guilty of anything.

And to their tender hearts, even keeping people in custody is a war crime. Don't you know, we are supposed to love the people that murder us?

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by mental modulator
Dude you I brought you some facts in my last post _ I took some time to continue our debate and argue my points, did my last post mess you up ???

No, it did not mess me up.
I just don't have time currently to go through the entire Patriot Act to refute your arguments point by point. I am fairly confident that there are more descriptions which clarify some of the snippets you used. I'll try and get to it soon. However, in the meantime, let me know when a U.S. citizen here in the states gets arrested for being a terrorist because of a phone call, yet is totally innocent, but the government convicts the person anyway.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

Look man,,, I am not here to peddle B.S,,, why would I waste my time???

This is the "law" that the patriot act amends...
The patriot is an expansive legislation which ads to this law below...




TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331

NOTES:


Source
(Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, § 1003(a)(3), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4521; amended Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 802(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376.)
References in Text

Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, referred to in par. (2), is classified to section 1101 (a)(22) of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
Prior Provisions

A prior section 2331 was renumbered 2332 of this title.
Amendments

2001—Par. (1)(B)(iii). Pub. L. 107–56, § 802(a)(1), substituted “by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping” for “by assassination or kidnapping”.
Par. (5). Pub. L. 107–56, § 802(a)(2)–(4), added par. (5).
Effective Date

Section 1003(c) of Pub. L. 102–572 provided that: “This section [enacting this section and sections 2333 to 2338 of this title, amending former section 2331 of this title, and renumbering former section 2331 of this title as 2332] and the amendments made by this section shall apply to any pending case or any cause of action arising on or after 4 years before the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 29, 1992].”
Short Title of 2004 Amendment

Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6601, Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3761, provided that: “This subtitle [subtitle G (§§ 6601–6604) of title VI of Pub. L. 108–458, enacting section 2339D of this title, amending sections 2332b and 2339A to 2339C of this title, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 2332b of this title] may be cited as the ‘Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition Enhancement Act of 2004’.”
Short Title of 2002 Amendment

Pub. L. 107–197, title I, § 101, June 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 721, provided that: “This title [enacting section 2332f of this title and provisions set out as notes under section 2332f of this title] may be cited as the ‘Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act of 2002’.”
Pub. L. 107–197, title II, § 201, June 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 724, provided that: “This title [enacting section 2339C of this title and provisions set out as notes under section 2339C of this title] may be cited as the ‘Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Convention Implementation Act of 2002’.”

In FULL -

www4.law.cornell.edu...

PATRIOT ACT


SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

www.ratical.org...

I was trying to share with you the legal ramifications of the patriot act. My point is that the patriot act is dangerously vague in a few key sub sections. The chances are very high that a motivated governmental entity can use this poor phrasing as a weapon against liberty--- IF it wanted to in the future.

Coupled with the fact that we now allow punishment to occur in secret, without oversight of civilian entities (courts),,, history tells us that these things slowly expand as they did
in the Germany of the thirties where similar laws were in acted long before Hitler came to rise. The laws were meant to provide political expediency in the event of terrorism which was a positive thing... How they were used is a very different matter!

Neither of us know if these laws will be used to imprison liberty, but based on, a few text books, the professors analysis and my own "pre law" knowledge the answer is yes. All that is needed is to "appear" - Which is entirely opinion- and break any one of the many of laws on the books- there are no sub clauses to these definitions as you can see

If I go further there are many combinations of these clauses which can be used to deem a person a terrorist.

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

This last line goes against your notion of " I am a citizen" --

It is the only clear point in the whole section!

Anyways I am a proud American as are you -- I am not here to be argumentative -
I do take liberty seriously, I think people like yourself defend the "front door" very well- I am interested in guarding the back door.

A REP or a DEM could use this against us if so desired. Keep in mind that just because I am Not an official, celebrity or corporate entity does not mean that I am INCORRECT based on title.

GOOD DEBATE SEE YOU


[edit on 15-7-2008 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by OldMedic
Once again, a rapid idiot has no real concept of what he is writing about.

The Red Cross can not find anyone guilty of anything.

And to their tender hearts, even keeping people in custody is a war crime. Don't you know, we are supposed to love the people that murder us?

OM -- If you read the entire thread you would understand that I recognize that the red cross is not judicial body-- DID YOU READ???

YOU PROVIDED nothing but an emotionally inflammatory
comment -- ZERO LOGIC---

This is a place for minds not mouthpieces.
You should find a website that states "embrace ignorance",,,
..



[edit on 15-7-2008 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by OldMedic
Once again, a rapid idiot has no real concept of what he is writing about.

Indeed, you keep posting on these threads and cheerleading for your hero, no matter how many organizations and factions acknowledge his overwhelming guilt as a war criminal. Give it up already, that 28% crowd that are still holding onto the rope are sinking fast dude. International Tribunals are in these people's futures...

reply to post by WhatTheory



You guys finished debating some time ago, so I don;t know when or if you'll see this. But something you said really stuck with me.

Your opponent said: "You have no rights if you are determined to be a terrorist."

You responded: "Not true, only non U.S. citizens have no rights. Big difference."

I will avoid the pedantic I hope by stating that you mean in the context of the US government does not have to extend citizen's rights to non-citizens.

It made me wonder, Is it, or should it be our position, (America) that non-citizens have 'no' rights whatsoever? If those rights differ substantially from our own, does that extend to what we call "due process"?

Shall we openly decline human rights as we ourselves defined them? It seems contradictory to the political and diplomatic stance we have taken since World War One.

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by OldMedic
Once again, a rapid idiot has no real concept of what he is writing about.

The Red Cross can not find anyone guilty of anything.

And to their tender hearts, even keeping people in custody is a war crime. Don't you know, we are supposed to love the people that murder us?

OM -- If you read the entire thread you would understand that I recognize that the red cross is not judicial body-- DID YOU READ???

YOU PROVIDED nothing but an emotionally inflammatory
comment -- ZERO LOGIC---

This is a place for minds not mouthpieces.
You should find a website that states "embrace ignorance",,,
..



[edit on 15-7-2008 by mental modulator]

This a terrorist lover we have got here!

reply to post by mental modulator


TL -MM - What WT is trying to say is that he don't care!
I think he is being nice to you,even though you are the typical liberal terrorist lover!

You don't think at all, all you can do is be a liberal which has been proven to be less smart and more evil then an average regular consevative man or woman I mite ad.

And so what if your right about the laws and all,the Patriot Act used against Americans won't be used against me or What theory.DO YOU KNOW WHY? because we know our place! - You keep spouting off your crazy nonecense about the governments and all. You would be crazy to do that here boy!
something is wrong with all you liberals!!!

I'm on the rite side,I know it, What theory knows it and you should to.
They don't call it RITE for nothing!

I think I am more conservative then What Theory because I say we need to blow up the whole problem parts of the world! No more problems! Bush needs to stay in office longer because Obama is a Muslim and he will let the terrorists here on boats. If it was up to me Bush would be president as long as he wants.He keeps use safe and he is a patriot!
Just know that those terrorists are lucky I aint the President - I would put them on an iland with fences and have them shot if they were escaping. You act like an animal you get traeted like an animal!

to your pink party

reply to post by winged patriot




[edit on 15-7-2008 by winged patriot]

reply to post by Maxmars


I will only add that now almost anyone can be defined as a terrorist, what with the vague definition set forth in the Radicalization Bill, the Patriot Act, FISA, etc.

Just ask any of the one million people on the terror watch list. Public Servants, little old ladies, kids...

So yes, we should definitely clarify this torture issue once and for all...before it's my turn.

Originally posted by Extralien

Winning or losing a war should make no difference to the fact that crimes are/have been committed and should make no difference on the time or place of arrest and charges made.

Agreed. If Crimes against Humanity have been comitted, then someone should be arrested and charged, and sentenced appropriately. Remember the Nuremberg Trials? Of the 24 defendants being charged with: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War, Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity - 12 were sentenced to death, 3 sentenced to Life in prison, 4 got prison sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years, and 3 were acquitted.

I am of the Opinion that the President should be held accountable to the highest standard possible - since of cousre, he is the President.

Source: history1900s.about.com...

Originally posted by mental modulator

[... Yes these detainees are brown and muslim, it is likely they are bad news. The point is we are the super power

It is likely they are bad news? Thats a pretty bold statement. SOME are held there simply for their color - and color does NOT determine behavior.

Superpower? I disagree. I believe that is a matter of opinion - and not a fact. I don't think that Superpowers have presidents willinginly driving their economy into a recession for a War that should have never started in the first place (also a matter of opinion). Superpowers don't have HUGE defecits. So this is where we disagree my friend.

Now...Clinton had a surplus when he was in office - and was impeached for what? Sexual Relations with his secretary? Yet George Bush has run the Country into a Deficit - and will probably avoid being impeached for War Crimes?

Source:news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally Posted by Maxmars

This is one question current political candidates will run from. "Does America condone and use torture?"

Ask them, and watch them squirm and twist like a vermicelli worm.

Of course they use torture - we just don't hear about it often. Omar Khadr. Is a Candian Citizen - currently being held in Guantanamo Bay (for the past 4 yearsish), and he is moved cell's EVERY 3 HOURS. He doesn't recieve a solid 6 - 8 hours of sleep. He is moved every 3 hours to a new cell. Tell me, that this isn't a form of torture.

Source: www.iht.com...

I believe that the American Justice system must exercise this authority unilaterally, or we are abdicating our right to claim that 'we' the American people can control over our governing servants.

Perhaps it would send a message if "they" could be tried by the American Justice System - however - Crimes against Humanity, I think, should be best tried Internationally. Or...were crimes only committed against the American people?

Originally posted by mental modulator

....Part of IRAQ'S Problem is that the population has no concept of civilized justice. They take their criminals or rivals to the desert and bury em, burn um, chop them up!!!

If these people could just create a working justice system they would not have to be afraid of deadly retribution in the form of rouge justice.

Their concept of civilized Justice, is clearly different than ours, but it doesn't make it any less right or wrong. If you were born and raised in Iraq, you wouldn't KNOW any different. You would grow up believing that the manner in which their justice sysem works - is right. For them - IT IS RIGHT. For those of us who have grown up in democratic nations, we look at their Country and wonder "WHY aren't they like us?" Well perhaps they are looking through the same glass - wondering the same thing.

A Working System according to who? Who decides what is working and what isn't? Again, its all a matter of opinion based on perception. When all you've known is their style of justice, you don't know any different - and sometimes - you don't want to. It isn't our place, to force our views or beliefs on them. It is THEIR place to determine what is right for their Country.

Bottom Line - The Bush Administration should be tried for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity - and they should be found Guilty. The Standard was set during the Nuremberg Trials, and therefore it should be upheld.

Just some thoughts...


- Carrot

reply to post by CA_Orot


I don't know who is more liberal you or mental monitator.
you both defend terrorists but you would probably marry one to save its stinking life!
I think your will let these people kill our children because you love them more

The genuine terrorists are the Bushes, the CIA, the Cheneys, so many other politicians, and all those fine U.S. scientists who have engineered AIDS and made weapons of so many other diseases.

Trying to decide which is worse among their crimes is almost impossible: giving everyone a cancer-virus through the Polio vaccine? exposing the men and women of the U.S. military to certain horrifying deaths from socalled depleted uranium? approving aspartame as a sweetener when it turns your brain into a formaldehyde stew? bio-engineering food so it will kill you later if not sooner?

All terror flows from the Rothschilds and the black nobility of Europe through the willing cooperation of U.S. traitors like the Bushes, the Cheneys, and the Clintons.

farm4.static.flickr.com...

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Queen Maeve]

reply to post by CA_Orot


Great work carrot going for the AGAINST GITMO people

I don't think you read my positions very carefully... and you dumped on my hours of typing by taking a few select phrases out of context!

Its funny... You go for me but not clinically psyco W Patriot who wants to blow up a quarter of the world

Good work I hope I do not ever have to take the stage before you again,

good luck with getting through

Just some more thoughts...

[edit on 15-7-2008 by mental modulator]

reply to post by winged patriot


Don't pretend to know me or my political views - I defend HUMANITY. I defend the children abused by sex offenders, I defend the people who were killed in the Twin Towers, I defend the jews killed in concentration camps, I defend the people of America who were killed and lied to by your President, I defend our Canadian Citizen who is being mis-treated in your prison and you are damned right that I defend the Terrorists who are mis-treated in prisons.

EVERYONE is entitled to be treated with respect.

Do yourself a favor - learn to read, it'll make you more educated and pleasant to debate with. So far - All I can see is Name-calling. I don't see any argument for or against the impeachement of the Bush Administration. All I am reading, is a typical patriotic response - based on nothing other than you're blind eyes.

- Carrot

reply to post by CA_Orot


Hey I'll save the readers some time -- Nobody cares... really if it is not in line with their
ideology they could care less!

All you need is a two liner and you have won the argument and buried the issue!

Originally posted by CA_Orot
reply to post by winged patriot

 

Don't pretend to know me or my political views - I defend HUMANITY. I defend the children abused by sex offenders, I defend the people who were killed in the Twin Towers, I defend the jews killed in concentration camps, I defend the people of America who were killed and lied to by your President, I defend our Canadian Citizen who is being mis-treated in your prison and you are damned right that I defend the Terrorists who are mis-treated in prisons.

EVERYONE is entitled to be treated with respect.

Do yourself a favor - learn to read, it'll make you more educated and pleasant to debate with. So far - All I can see is Name-calling. I don't see any argument for or against the impeachement of the Bush Administration. All I am reading, is a typical patriotic response - based on nothing other than you're blind eyes.

- Carrot

I told you--- this person is like a third inbreed, a third charlie manson and a third pat robertson .

P.S if you piss him off enough he will follow your posts and act out! I suspect that is why he is here!

reply to post by Maxmars

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

You guys finished debating some time ago, so I don;t know when or if you'll see this. But something you said really stuck with me.

Your opponent said: "You have no rights if you are determined to be a terrorist."

You responded: "Not true, only non U.S. citizens have no rights. Big difference."

I will avoid the pedantic I hope by stating that you mean in the context of the US government does not have to extend citizen's rights to non-citizens.

It made me wonder, Is it, or should it be our position, (America) that non-citizens have 'no' rights whatsoever? If those rights differ substantially from our own, does that extend to what we call "due process"?

Shall we openly decline human rights as we ourselves defined them? It seems contradictory to the political and diplomatic stance we have taken since World War One.

You bring up an interesting point. There are rights which extend to all men, such as due process, and there are rights reserved to citizens, such as voting.

What would be really useful would be a list of which rights are extended to whom.