'War criminal!': Ron Paul backers crash Cheney-Rumsfeld reunion

Originally posted by byteshertz
Doesnt impress me - most cops i've met don't actually understand how the law works beyond what they need to know to get the average jo to comply.

Who is grasping at straws now? I think your confusion on knowledge of the law and cops stems from the fact that when you are told, by a cop, what the law is, you disagree and continue on your way, oblivious to the fact you are wrong. Which by the way, you are wrong.

Originally posted by byteshertz
Perhaps you can show me where the USA has declared war - because last time I checked it hasnt.

I love it.. when confronted and proven wrong, you shift the conversation.

Ok pay attention because your going to be given some more laws.

Article 2 Section 2 of the Us Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war
The War powers Act of 1973 scaled down the ability of the Commander in Chief to fight a undeclared war by requireing congressioanl approval for military actions, IE hostilities.

Now that you have the basic, Congress does not have to declare war to authorize military use of force.

September 18th, 2001 - Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

October 16th, 2002 - Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

UN Charter - Article 51 - Self defense

UN Resolutions dealing with Iraq - Begining with the first gulf war
1990 -

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, adopted on April 3, 1991, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678 (all 1990) and 686 (1991), the Council set the terms, in a comprehensive resolution, with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War.

2002 -

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]

Iraqs failure to comply with all UN Resolutions that were in place after the first gulf war placed them in breach. Use of force was allowed based on UN Charter - Article VII Breach of Peace.

The war in Afghanistan was never "authorized" by the UN, but it did not have to be since the US invoked Article VII Section 51 of the UN Charter in addition to NATO invoking our self defense articles.

You can take it upon yourself if you want to learn and read through all that. If you dont want to thats fine, but you need to stop making claims you cant back up.

Originally posted by byteshertz
You are one of those cop's that just likes the sound of his own voice is all im seeing. It is not tresspassing unless you are asked to leave. What you are saying is if I let you on my property and you say something I don't like I can have you arrested for breaking the law.

No, I am one of those cops who is telling you that your knwoledge of the law is wrong, and I do it in hopes you might actually open your eyes, swallow your pride, and learn to avoid trouble. Tresspassing as an infraction - no notification required to be cited for tresspassing. Tresspassing as a misdameanor - Told to leave and you refuse.
Causing such a commotion that causes an affront to others - Disturbing the Peace
Telling a cop you dont have to leave because you were never told you were tresspassing, after the cop told you to leave - ignoring a lawful command.
Contining to argue with the officer - Resisting an arrest

Being so arrogant and pompous that you ignore what people are trying to tell you in hopes you avoid these pitfalls

- Priceless

Originally posted by byteshertz
Ummmm no mr cop Thats just stupid.

Yeah because this argument has always worked out in the persons favor the moment it comes out of their mouth.

Originally posted by byteshertz
Why you talk as if you actually have a higher understanding of the law and rights is beyond me when clearly you can not grasp the simple concept that saying anything anywhere is not illegal.

Again, going for the goal of being wrong - I, again, refer you to Schenck vs. United States

Originally posted by byteshertz
Well Mr Cop, I don't think anyone is going to be too worried about 'loosing' anything but their right to freedom of speech. Please explain how this is any different from you coming to my house and then saying something I don't like. I can have you arrested if you don't leave when I ask, but anything you say is not illegal.

If I am at your house because of a call for service - 911 you dont have that option. You can not prevent law enforcement from investigating the call for service. Any attempt to tell us to leave can be ignored and no action can be taken until such time as we are satisfied the call has been handeled as required by law.

If I am at your house because I just dropped by then yup, you would be within your rights to do that.

Anyting other questions you want answers to?

reply to post by Torgo


I think if there was enough evidence uncovered that linked rove to outing Valerie Plame, then his ass should of been hung for exposing her. Any person in cahoots with him, regardless of their position in the adminiatration, should join him.

As far as the email scandal goes its a violation of the records act. Those records belong to the citizens of the United States for posterity and never should have been lost / destroyed let alone conducting government business from private email accounts in an effort to skirt the law.

In other words, I dont care for him at all and thought he should have been prosecuted.

reply to post by byteshertz


Link your source for disturbing the peace please.

A private strucure that is open and accesible to the public - Mall, Hospital, Amusement park, Grocery Store, Walmart, Wendys etc etc etc. including Cheneys speech interuptions all meet requirements for disturbing the peace.

Again I urge you to please learn the law and its application. I salute your effort, but its going to get you in trouble and you are going to understand why.

Originally posted by Torgo
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Forgive me, but with your support of Cheney and with such statements as, "LOL this is just to perfect... So once again, the left is going to hide behind the right, while the right does the job when it comes to taking a stand on something." you can see why I might be a bit confused.

Seriously though, I'd love to hear what you have to say about Rove.

edit on 10-2-2011 by Torgo because: (no reason given)

My comment about the left and the right was a contination of a sarcastic remark I made about democrats not being able to take a stand on anything. Togo made the comment to take the people who verbally supoorted chenney in the video and sent them to the front to see how long they would survive.

I simply pointed out, as with my sarcastic remarks a few posts prior, that once again the left was hiding behind the right, using the right to make a stand while the left stood behind and criticised.

Originally posted by byteshertz
reply to post by byteshertz

 

Mr cop's taking a while... reading though his training manual

Lol you really do have a mouth full of wise ass tonight dont you. I took the time to actually give you the link sso you can better understand my arguments.

I am seriously not trying to piss you off. Ask Dimentional Detective if you dont want to beleive me. When I see people make comments that when put in practical application will get them in trouble, I speak my mind on that. Its up to you on whether or not you want to listen to anything I have to say.

I dont do it because you think I get some type of trip off of it. I do it because one of the main goals of my profession is to educate. Sometimes a conversation can go a lot farther, and make more of an impact, than arresting someone and taking them to jail.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Your title doesnt frighten me.. I take you on as well Mr. Mod j/k

Serious question though for you guys on the war crimes bit.

Please explain to me how they commited war crimes. Serious question.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Your title doesnt frighten me.. I take you on as well Mr. Mod

j/k

Serious question though for you guys on the war crimes bit.

Please explain to me how they commited war crimes. Serious question.

For starters, how about the nearly ONE THOUSAND lies he and his admin bellowed out around the clock to charge us into this invasion---Instigating war based on false pretenses?

False Pretenses

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

Continued:

projects.publicintegrity.org...

And a nice little video collage of them being CAUGHT contradicting some of said lies:



Leaving out the debate whether their approval of extraordinary rendition and waterboarding was legal or not (and I do not feel for a moment they are), the above MYRIAD of LIES these folks regurgitated AD INFINITUM to kick off the invasion of an INNOCENT country, which has resulted in IMMEASURABLE death and suffering, not to mention nearly 5,000 of our OWN men DEAD, due to these LIES, not to mention the tens of thousands suffering permanent damage from this absolutely UNECESSARY conquest these maniacs insisted to get us into.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


.... What are those idiots applauding and chanting for?

Dont they know this man ruined their country?

Idiots... You cant be that dumb and blind.. you just cant.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Very few people still think that Bush deliberately lied about WMDs. Nearly the entire world believed what Bush believed. It has never been proved to be a lie to date. It's been debunked for years now, but still remains a dull weapon in the liberal arsenal of propaganda.

But some lies, such as "Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq", never die.

reply to post by mishigas


Riiiight...And I will counter your "very few people believe Bush lied about WMDs" with a great big whopping >>>B.S.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

I dont know. I think the price of admission would be worth getting the press. Thats a lot of bang for your buck.

Yeah, you are right. They got a damn good bit for their money....a barely audible comment, followed by ....the continuation of the ceremony. Money well spent!

Well we are talking about it here and it's gone viral on conspiracy sites and is up on Youtube for all to see.
So yeah, I think they did get a lot of bang for the price of a ticket.
Even the political parties are putting lots of premium $$$ aside to advertise on the net during campaigns.
If the new net viral model wasn't successful, they wouldn't waste the money. IMO

Thanks to the O.P for putting this up.
Shows at the very least that people are getting braver and more vocal and outspoken.
It's slowly happening.......

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by byteshertz
Perhaps you can show me where the USA has declared war - because last time I checked it hasnt.

I love it.. when confronted and proven wrong, you shift the conversation.

Firstly Im going to lay off the Mr Cop approach because as frustrated as I get by cops abusing their power and bending laws such as disturbing the peace in their favour - cop's are a needed part of society and I do not want to bring them down as a whole as I proove you wrong.
The reason I have pointed out the USA has not declared war is because the case you are pointed me to - Schenck vs United States the judgment was - according to wikipedia (not the best source I know) as follows:
The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional. The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
- The USA is not in an official war
- The individuals freedom of speech was not valid when encouraging insubordination.
-This has nothing to do with freedom of speech of calling someone a "war criminal" as it not encouraging insubordination (this can not be argued - they are no longer in power)

Ok pay attention because your going to be given some more laws.

Article 2 Section 2 of the Us Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war
The War powers Act of 1973 scaled down the ability of the Commander in Chief to fight a undeclared war by requireing congressioanl approval for military actions, IE hostilities.

Now that you have the basic, Congress does not have to declare war to authorize military use of force.
September 18th, 2001 - Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

October 16th, 2002 - Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

UN Charter - Article 51 - Self defense

UN Resolutions dealing with Iraq - Begining with the first gulf war
1990 -

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, adopted on April 3, 1991, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678 (all 1990) and 686 (1991), the Council set the terms, in a comprehensive resolution, with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War.

2002 -

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]

Iraqs failure to comply with all UN Resolutions that were in place after the first gulf war placed them in breach. Use of force was allowed based on UN Charter - Article VII Breach of Peace.

The war in Afghanistan was never "authorized" by the UN, but it did not have to be since the US invoked Article VII Section 51 of the UN Charter in addition to NATO invoking our self defense articles.

I believe with the above comments you are now diverting the coversation, or were not clear on why I stated that no war has been declared - I have not said anywhere that in order to authorize military force they have to declare war I was simply stating the USA is not in an offical state of war so the case you cited is invalid.

You can take it upon yourself if you want to learn and read through all that. If you dont want to thats fine, but you need to stop making claims you cant back up.

The above passages on the authorization of military force etc are nothing to do with your original argument that
someone can be arrested for saying somthing another does not like if on private property.

Originally posted by byteshertz
You are one of those cop's that just likes the sound of his own voice is all im seeing. It is not tresspassing unless you are asked to leave. What you are saying is if I let you on my property and you say something I don't like I can have you arrested for breaking the law.

No, I am one of those cops who is telling you that your knwoledge of the law is wrong, and I do it in hopes you might actually open your eyes, swallow your pride, and learn to avoid trouble.

I have never had any trouble with the law so I think I have learnt what I need to know. Thanks for your concern.

Tresspassing as an infraction - no notification required to be cited for tresspassing. Tresspassing as a misdameanor - Told to leave and you refuse.

Oxford dictionary definition of tresspassenter someone's land or property without permission.

A cop can serve an infraction notice on someone who does not have permission. In order for someone to not have permission to be somwhere they must first be told they do not have permission - or they could easily argue the case using a 'Letter of understanding'. Just because you as a cop can issue the ticket doesnt mean it can legally stick. And for it to be a misdameanor you must be told to leave as you have stated above.

Causing such a commotion that causes an affront to others - Disturbing the Peace
Telling a cop you dont have to leave because you were never told you were tresspassing, after the cop told you to leave - ignoring a lawful command.
Contining to argue with the officer - Resisting an arrest

You have just contradicted yourself proving my poing - "never told you were tresspassing, after the cop told you to leave" as far as it being a lawful command - it is only a lawful command once you have been first asked to leave.

Being so arrogant and pompous that you ignore what people are trying to tell you in hopes you avoid these pitfalls

- Priceless

Being so arrogant and pompous that you ignore the very technicalities of the law you have sworn to uphold
- Princess

Originally posted by byteshertz
Ummmm no mr cop Thats just stupid.

Yeah because this argument has always worked out in the persons favor the moment it comes out of their mouth.

As you well know, whatever you says goes - until the court get's a look in and the law actually takes effect.

Originally posted by byteshertz
Why you talk as if you actually have a higher understanding of the law and rights is beyond me when clearly you can not grasp the simple concept that saying anything anywhere is not illegal.

Again, going for the goal of being wrong - I, again, refer you to Schenck vs. United States

Originally posted by byteshertz
Well Mr Cop, I don't think anyone is going to be too worried about 'loosing' anything but their right to freedom of speech. Please explain how this is any different from you coming to my house and then saying something I don't like. I can have you arrested if you don't leave when I ask, but anything you say is not illegal.

If I am at your house because of a call for service - 911 you dont have that option. You can not prevent law enforcement from investigating the call for service. Any attempt to tell us to leave can be ignored and no action can be taken until such time as we are satisfied the call has been handeled as required by law.

You are avoiding my question which I will rephrase to stop you from playing the cop card repetatively.
If someone is at my house in a group gathering let's say a party where lot's of people gatecrashed and I I do not like something they say, can I call you to arrest them? because according to you they do not have freedom of speech on private property and are breaking the law

If I am at your house because I just dropped by then yup, you would be within your rights to do that.
Anyting other questions you want answers to?

So you are saying I can ask you to remove them for trespassing if I myself have not even asked them to leave first? According to you they are breaking the law. Think about this carefully because police use this all the time - if they are called to your house for suspected drug use and the door is open they will just walk straight in - a person is required to ask them to leave or have the door shut to prevent the cop entering. You are also saying someone who is advertising something walks up your driveway, you could have them arrested for tresspassing even though you have not presented them a sign saying they are not welcome or told them they must leave.

Our first challenger...

/cracks knuckles

OK.. First thing Iraq and Afghanistan

Afghanistan - No UN resolution needed for military action. It is covered under UN Charter Chapter VII - Article 51 as well as September 18th, 2001 - Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Iraq - October 16th, 2002 - Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

UN Resolutions dealing with Iraq - Begining with the first gulf war
1990 -

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, adopted on April 3, 1991, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678 (all 1990) and 686 (1991), the Council set the terms, in a comprehensive resolution, with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War.

2002 -

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]

Iraqs failure to comply with all UN Resolutions that were in place after the first gulf war placed them in breach. Use of force was allowed based on UN Charter - Article VII Breach of Peace.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
For starters, how about the nearly ONE THOUSAND lies he and his admin bellowed out around the clock to charge us into this invasion---Instigating war based on false pretenses?

US did find Iraq WMD

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

The presence of WMD's inside Iraq validated the US/UK invasion under UN REsolutions already in place since the 1st Gulf War ended. Thos resolutions laid out the consequences for failing to comply with those resolutions and were all authorized by the UN Security Council. No further authorization is required based on:

1 - Iraq failing to comply with ALL resolutions
2 - Possession of WMD's violated the cease fire that ended the first gulf war
3 - Failure to comply with required inspections prior to 2002

Now - Accusation of War Crimes against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

UN Definition of a War Crime

The draft statute enumerates four different categories of war crimes. The first two categories apply to international armed conflicts and are largely based on well-established principles of international law. There is broad support for their inclusion:

A. Grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts (largely derived from the Hague law, limiting the methods of waging war).

C. In case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (which bars specified acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities)

D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law (based largely on the Second Additional Protocol to the four Geneva Conventions).

Part C and Part D only apply in times of armed conflict when its not part of an international character. Al-Queida and the Taliban (they are not the UN recognized government, and therefore are not considered a government but controlling faction) fall under the last 2.

A war crime has absolutely nothing to do with lies at all. It has to do with the actions of the combatants towards each other, civilians, POWs / enemy combatants, summary execution (exceptions exist).

The other Governing criteria in this mess are these:
International Humanitarian Law
Geneva Conventions
Rule of Law in Armed ConflictsInternational Human Rights Law
UN Convention Against Torture

as well as US Domestic Law concerning the status of enemy combatants and military tribunals concerning processing of enemy combatants and detention of under military custody.

The UN resolutions / laws covering war, geneva conventions are specific in regards to what can and cannot occur to POW's. However, enemy combatants fall under a second category. Enemy combatants fall outside the established norm of the Geneva Conventions because they dont meet criteria:

3rd Geneva Convention

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
.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 fulfill all of 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 (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 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.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 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.
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.
Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

**I reduced your quote in this portion to the basics since the argument made has been rendered mute thanks to wikileaks of all sources**

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
False Pretenses

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

Under the first part of your statement above about Lies is the complete link and text. Here is just the link for quick reference.

US did find Iraq WMD

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Leaving out the debate whether their approval of extraordinary rendition and waterboarding was legal or not (and I do not feel for a moment they are),

Torture is covered under the CAT (Convention against Torture - The US and UK is a signatory to the first treaty. We are NOT a signatory to OPCAT (Rome 2002).

Under CAT (and other people aregue with me on this point and thats fine) a signatory to the treaty is prevented from "torturing" someone, with torutre defined as:

'''Article 1''' of the Convention defines torture as: [[Quotation |Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. |Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1]]

Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.

However, going back to the Geneva Convention definition of a POW, Taliban and Al-Queida do not meet the criteria of being a POW. They are established as an enemy combatant / belligerent. As such they do not receive full protection of the Geneva Conventions. The requirement put forth is the country who has taken them prisoner can utilise Civilian Domestic Laws or Military Tribunals.

Since they were captured during a time of armed conflict, there is no requirement to charge them with a crime. This is supported by actions during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, First Gulf war, where captured persons were held until the end of the war / conflict at which time prisoner swaps / repatriations occured.

Going back to CAT, there is a provision in their that invokes the term and use of Universal Jurisdiction. This concept is where if a country violates CAT, and refuses to take actions to correct it, other countries can actually give themselves jurisdiction. The problem is the US signed and ratified this treaty, and under article 2 section 2 of the US Constitution, the treaty becomes law and applicable to US citizens.

Problem 1 - A foreign treaty cannot grant authority to the US Government that the Constitution has not granted to them.

Problem 2 - When a treaty is signed and becomes offical in the US, it becomes part of the body of US Federal Law - which means the treaty can be changed / challenged / narrowed / etc by the US Court system.

Since orders were issued by the Preisdent and military commanders within the political boundary of the US, there was no violation of CAT (Article 21 - requirements for extradition and invocation of universal jurisdiction). The other part is when a nation refuses to abide by the treaty, the ase is referred to the International Criminal Court. The US is not a signatory to that entity, and as such it has not enforcement authority towards the US or its citizens.

Next up - Legalities of torture under Domestic Law / Military Law
The Torture Memos / Bybee Memo / 8/1/02 Interrogation Opinion,

were a set of legal memoranda drafted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States John Yoo and signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee. They advised the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Defense, and the President on the use of mental and physical torment and coercion such as prolonged sleep deprivation, binding in "stress positions," and waterboarding, and stated that acts widely regarded as torture might be legally permissible under an expansive interpretation of Presidential authority during the "War on Terror." These memoranda have been the focus of considerable controversy, and were repudiated by President Barack Obama in early 2009.

** Repudiation by President Obama is irrelevant to the argument against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld **

Ok - The nail in the coffin in my opinion for the argument to charge the 3 with any crimes at all is based on The International Humanitarian Law (Laws of War / Laws of Armed Conflict) which is the basis for all other treaties covering this area.

Specifically noting that the Taliban and Al queida are not signatories to any of these conventions (Geneva / IHL / CAT/ ETC) they fall under the category already mentioned (non international conflict etc).

These 2 groups routinely:
* - use human shields by engaging in fighting close to civilian populations, to run up civilian body count
* - they use that body count as propoganda purposes (print and media)
* - they use schools, hospital and mosques to store weapons and to fight from
* - they do not have a military uniform, and routinely will pretend to be civilians while being a combatant
* - they mistreat the civilian populations by forced moves, mass executions, summary judgment
* - they mistreat the civilian population when of differing religion
* - they employ children under the age of 18 as combatants throug coercian
* - they launch reprisals against familes
* - they employ summary execution of foreign non combatant nationals (NGO/assistance groups)
* - they employ summary execution of capture military personell who are in uniform
* - they video tape these executions and brodcast them as propoganda
* - they summarily execute captured military personell for refusing to convert to Islam

I can continue on, but you get the idea. Here is where the arguments for war crimes / torture come off the wheels.

The same agreements people want to use to prosecute Bush / Cheney and Rumsfeld listed above, contain this overlooked yet very important warning.

There are also other customary unwritten rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. By extension, they also define both the permissive rights of these powers as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.

Why is this important?

Violations and punishment

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.

The part just above that is emphasized was done by mean, because this is the basis that allows the actions people find offensive and want to hold Bush and them accountible for. Continued in detail below.

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.

Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant.

Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution.

The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.

After a conflict has ended, persons who have committed any breach of the laws of war, and especially atrocities, may be held individually accountable for war crimes through process of law.

The last part is where people will try to argue, but its incumbant on both parties being signatories as well as holding the status of POW, with captured Taliban / Al Queida personnel do not - They are classified under UN Agreements / Geneva Conventions and US Domestic Law as enemy combatants.

To round out my argument, the "torture" we subject them to - waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc is a cake walk comapred to how they treat their captives and fellow countrymen. We have afforded our detained enemy combatants use of the legal system as well as counsel to protect what rights they have left under US Law and International Law.

The other argument I have seen is torture has never saved any lives. I disagree with that statement when applying it to our detainees. Top Al Queida leadership thathave been :tortured" by waterboarding have revealed information that has in fact saved American Lives.

Everything that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have done have been in accordance with International Standards based on actions and behavior of the Taliban / Al Queida personnel. They have made their decisions known which allowed court challenges to those actions. They have also allowed Congress to review those actions, allowing them to pass laws to restrict / limit certain action.

Those actions have been to the Courts, and in the end the majority of this argument and legal standings have made their way to the Us Supreme Court, who has made rulings based on treaty and US Law.

In order to support a warcrime allegation, there must be a denial to any oversight of actions taken during times of the conflict. In this case, they have fully complied with requirements. They sought legal counsel advice on torture from white house counsel, which does not share confidential priveladge, which means they are required to disclose any conversation they have had dealing with everything. They also sought the advice and opinions of the Us Attorney General and his staffs opinions.

Now, whether you agree with this or not is completely up to you and your opinions on this. My personal opinion in this matter, as far as President Bush goes, is he fulfilled his oarth to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, Foreign and Domestic, with no mental reservations there of.

He took actions based on information from many many sources, all in the intrest of protecting US citizen which is one of his key duties as President of the United States. He hid nothing, and left it all out on the field so history can judge his actions. Cheney and Rumsfeld took the same oath and acted in the same manner, whether we agree with it or not.

This entire mess is along the same lines of my arguments when Law Enforcement uses force. People get all of the information after the fact, and because of that, draw conclusions and assumptions that the key players "should have known about".

Also, my other pet peeve in all of this is President Obama picked up where President Bush left off. How come know one is demanding he be charged and tried for war crimes? How come no one screamed and demanded Hussein be charged with war crimes for his treatment of his people. Or China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, N. Korea, Syria, Hezzbullah, Hamass??

I stand by my earlier comment that in my opinion, taking a stand against those countries and doing whats right, is to hard. Its easier to target a country that does have a rule of law, where any person on the planet can come, make a sign and protest in front of the White House, Congress or the Supreme Court building without fear of reprisal from the Government.

They scream to be heard, but in my opinion its nothing more than an attention getting scheme. If it were more than that, then the US, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney would not be the only topics of conversation in those circles.

Thats my thoughts and 2 cents on the matter. Feel free to counter me and thanks for letting me use the thread for this.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

Very few people still think that Bush deliberately lied about WMDs. Nearly the entire world believed what Bush believed. It has never been proved to be a lie to date. It's been debunked for years now, but still remains a dull weapon in the liberal arsenal of propaganda.

But some lies, such as "Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq", never die.

US did find Iraq WMD

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by mishigas

 

Riiiight...And I will counter your "very few people believe Bush lied about WMDs" with a great big whopping >>>B.S.

reply to post by byteshertz


Good points.
I also think a ticket buying attendee would have more legal rights than someone who had gatecrashed and made the comment. I think that could be construed as trespassing.
But having bought the ticket, the person had a legal right to be there and voice his opinion.
Makes sense to me anyway.

reply to post by Flighty


*Gasp* are you insane?!?! You only have the right to voice the opinions that the scumbags, I mean gentlemen and scholars at said event wants you to express, after paying money for a ticket. /sarcasm

I don't know how they get away with that crap... I wonder why the kajillion dollar "sports" industry hasn't latched onto that BS yet? Cheer against our team, we will have security escort you out. We don't care that you spent money on the ticket, GTFO.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Now the funny part about this is I constantly hear most folks here talk about how "worthless" the U.N. is, unless they want to use them as part of an argument FOR a stance. lol.

I also remember Bush in the midst of his immeasurable lies lamenting the threat "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists".

I also recall his regime having Yoo, draft up language that would EXCUSE them for using waterboarding and torture, which is another reason I aint buying that its legal. If it were, there would have been no reason for them to have him create up that draft to begin with.

And a countering point to its legality:

The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]

The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.

There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

One of the principal sponsors of the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 clarifying the War Crimes Act and outlawing cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners was Senator John McCain, who was tortured by the North Vietnamese when he was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War.[50] During Attorney General Mukasey’s confirmation hearings, Senator McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham, another sponsor of the legislation, issued a statement declaring that these laws were intended to prohibit waterboarding.[51] In this statement they also disclosed that when the Military Commissions Act was enacted, the Bush Administration had personally assured them that the law as written outlawed waterboarding.[52]

Even before these laws were adopted the United States considered waterboarding to be torture and a criminal offense.[53] After World War II, the United States prosecuted and convicted a number of Japanese officers for torturing captured American servicemen by waterboarding.[54] Great Britain prosecuted another group of Japanese officers who had tortured British soldiers using this technique, and sentenced them to death.[55] Over a century ago, the United States prosecuted and convicted American military officers who used waterboarding against prisoners in the Philippines.[56]

Source:

lawreview.wustl.edu...


And on the WMD's---Not buying that for a sec. It took them FOREVER before they "mysteriously" started appearing, which to me indicates a less than honest find, at the very least (most likely PLANTED there). Hell, you can even SEE Rummy and Bush admitting above there were none! haha---Straight from the horses mouths.

Also---To add in regarding you mentioning "no one bringing up Obama for continuing these policies", I actually DID refer to him in my first response, and I ALWAYS call him out as furthering on this criminality. He is absolutely COMPLICIT in carrying on all of the same filth the Bush admin was doing!

I think Constitutional Lawyer and professor Jonathan Turley sums up nicely Obama's criminal complicity in blocking investigations of the Bush cabal war crimes, as well as John Yoo being the ARCHITECT behind trying to excuse these crimes:

reply to post by TKDRL


Haha!!.....
Can you imagine the fights that would break out if opposing teams fans couldn't boo and hiss and carry on against the home team when they score after paying for the privilege... It makes me laugh just imaging the result of them trying on that one ..

Originally posted by byteshertz
The reason I have pointed out the USA has not declared war is because the case you are pointed me to - Schenck vs United States the judgment was - according to wikipedia (not the best source I know) as follows.

No man.. I gave you that case because you kept arguing about freedom of speech and it doesnt matter where you are you can do and say what you want. I can pull up the court rulings on yelling fire in a crowded theatre if you want.

Originally posted by byteshertz
- The USA is not in an official war

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.

Since Al Queida is not a nation state, and the Taliban are not the recognized government of Afghanistan by the UN, in addition the the above, we are covered.

Originally posted by byteshertz
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech of calling someone a "war criminal" as it not encouraging insubordination (this can not be argued - they are no longer in power)

Yeah I know, it was in reference to you saying people can say whatever they want whenever they want.Part of the decidiong opinion in that case specifically dealt with intentioanl creating a false panic in a public space.

As far as the insubordination and 1st amendment deal you thought I was talking about, it was overturned in Brandenburg Vs. Ohio.

Originally posted by byteshertz
I believe with the above comments you are now diverting the coversation, or were not clear on why I stated that no war has been declared - I have not said anywhere that in order to authorize military force they have to declare war I was simply stating the USA is not in an offical state of war so the case you cited is invalid.

Are you sure? We need to be careful about latching onto specific words without first understand their historical context - respectfully.

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.

Declaration of War
War on Terror
Congrssioanl authorization for the use of military force
Congressional action authorizing a police action

They all are the same thing. The underlying principle is not the wording, but the ability of Congress to say yes, you can do this, and we will fund it. Thats the only requirement.

Originally posted by byteshertz
The above passages on the authorization of military force etc are nothing to do with your original argument that
someone can be arrested for saying somthing another does not like if on private property.

Correct it was in response to you saying "can you show me where Congress declared war". I answered it.

Originally posted by byteshertz
I have never had any trouble with the law so I think I have learnt what I need to know. Thanks for your concern.

If you think so.. more power to ya

Originally posted by byteshertz
A cop can serve an infraction notice on someone who does not have permission. In order for someone to not have permission to be somwhere they must first be told they do not have permission - or they could easily argue the case using a 'Letter of understanding'. Just because you as a cop can issue the ticket doesnt mean it can legally stick. And for it to be a misdameanor you must be told to leave as you have stated above.

No the infranction charge, and the reason its an infraction and not misdameanor, is because knowledge of wrongdoing is irrelevant. You can be tresspassing, not be told and be cited for it.

Originally posted by byteshertz
You have just contradicted yourself proving my poing - "never told you were tresspassing, after the cop told you to leave" as far as it being a lawful command - it is only a lawful command once you have been first asked to leave.

No I didnt. I listed what can occur based on your refusal arguments in progression from infraction, to misdameanor arrest not only for tresspassing, ut for peace disturbance, refusing a lawful command and resisting arrest. If I made contact with you and said Iam writing you a citation for tresspassing - infraction, come outside ot my car. At that moment, you know know you are tresspassing. The moment you decide to argue and not move, you moved from that infraction to misdameanor.

Originally posted by byteshertz
Being so arrogant and pompous that you ignore the very technicalities of the law you have sworn to uphold
- Princess

Yeah.. keep the mindset up. I am going to make a guess that youhave in fact had bad encounters with law enforcement, and most likely those encounters went bad because you are to stubborn to listen and learn because you think you are right in all of these matters.

Thats fine.. I gave you info and refuted all of your claims / comments / blah.

Originally posted by byteshertz
As you well know, whatever you says goes - until the court get's a look in and the law actually takes effect.

Very good.. I am glad to see you actually understand that the Police are not part of the Judicial branch. /clap

[

Originally posted by byteshertz
You are avoiding my question which I will rephrase to stop you from playing the cop card repetatively.

I am sure you meant your rephrase the question because I was wrong from the start game.. Go ahead and ask

Originally posted by byteshertz
If someone is at my house in a group gathering let's say a party where lot's of people gatecrashed and I I do not like something they say, can I call you to arrest them? because according to you they do not have freedom of speech on private property and are breaking the law

I did answer this. First off I am going to assume by the term gatecrashing, they just showed up and came onto your property. If that is the case yeah they can be cited for infraction tresspassing. If they are screaming and using foul language, I would look at you and ask

" Is your peace disturbed?"

If you say yes, then I will write them that citation as well.

If by gatecrashing you mean they snuck onto your property and broke down your front door, no it would not be tresspassing. It would be 2nd degree burglary in my state (tresspassing is a lesser included offense). Its a clas B felony, and they would be in jail for the weekend.

During that rucus if they are yelling screaming and cursing at you, we can tack on the peace disturbance as well.

Originally posted by byteshertz
Think about this carefully because police use this all the time - if they are called to your house for suspected drug use and the door is open they will just walk straight in - a person is required to ask them to leave or have the door shut to prevent the cop entering. You are also saying someone who is advertising something walks up your driveway, you could have them arrested for tresspassing even though you have not presented them a sign saying they are not welcome or told them they must leave.

Woah.. major issue here. Do you live in the United States? Serious question for the cops just walking in part.

If the door is wide open, and their is illegal activity or items in plain sight they can enter to prevent destruction of that evidence. They are also allowed to conduct whats called a ssafety weep. We can do a room by room search to ensure no other evidence is being destroyed, all parties in the house are accounted for, and no one is going to get a gun to shoot at us. We are NOT allowed to conduct an actual search during a safety sweep. We are limited to areas that could conceivably hide a human.

Once that is done we are required to get a search warrant if we want to search the premises based on the plain view exception that got us in. Because of the manner the drugs were discovered, its a gaurantee that defense will file a motion to exclude evidence based on an improper search. Thats up to the judge and PA to argue out. ONce we file the PC statement and log the evidence, we are done unless we get subpoenaed to testify.

If the front door is open, and nothing is in plain sight and their is no identifiable smell of burning drugs, and there are not exigent circumstances that would grant us entry (blood on the door, person screaming, etc) then we ant enter the residen period. It would conceivably be a 4th amendment violation depending on what transpired.

If we dont see anything, but can smell that is another exception (like the plain site deal). This is a bit harder as the officer will have to be 100 percent certain that the odor he smells is in fact burning marijuana / crack etc. That officer will ahve to prove to the court that he has the experience and training to recognize those odors as being unique and associated with the respective drug (marijuana, meth, crack, etc).

This is usually where department DRE's comes in (Drug Recognition Officers). They receive indepth training on drugs, smell, looks in addition to effects on the body (DUI/DWI stuff).

The problem with the last part is varying case law at the State and Federal level. The city I work for falls into 3 counties. One of those countries had issues with another larger municipality and the actions of their DRE's. Because of that problem, and the judges ruling in favor of the defendant, it screwed over all the other LEA in that county. No DRE testimony is accepted by that court.

If they are just walking in, I would tell them to step back outside. I would repeat that request if they fail to comply. If they attempt to ignore and walk past, I would be louder and more forceful in my request, moving it over to a demand to leave.

If they fail to comply, dont engage them.. Be a good witness and talk to a lawyer. Sometimes they will try to do the only your parents can tell us to leave routine. If they arent home and you are in control of the premises, its all you. Hell you could technically tell all of your friends that if tehy see cops coming to tell them to wait outside the person in control of the premis is on the way.

The more they ignore that stuff, the harder it will be for them to justify any action they have taken in court. Even if you arent charged, I would talk to a lawyer about it.

The other question I have on this. You said they tell you they receive a 911 call reporting drug use. Do they use that a lot? If they do, make amental note of the time they arrived. Talk to a lawyer and have the 911 tapes pulled to verify. They are open records under sunshine laws and they cannot legally refuse a request of those unless its part of a major investigation.

Sorry for the meandering on the last part. It irritates the crap out of me when we "push" the limits for no good reason other than to harass people.