It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
39
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
You know what -- the Supreme Court, does all sorts of rulings that are fairly bogus. I consider them mostly fascist these days -- it is a court made of human beings with human failings. And some, like Clarence Thomas, more human failings and less logic than most. We almost got Harriet Myers as a "supreme court" justice -- so if they could have put some lipstick on a pig, as long as it voted for Haliburton every time, that pig would sit on our Supreme Court.


Certainly your viewpoint. However again I find it ironic that when a court makes a decision you dont agree with, you attack the legitimacy of the court. Also, invoking Palin and a Bush apointee tells me that your views in this area might be a little biased.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Trying to rationalize some of the Legal arguments -- well ANY legal arguments from the Bush administration, is a lesson in Weasel Logic. The Bush legal team started with concepts like; "Well, we were illegally spying and torturing, so how do we cover our Ass now?" These weren't noble ideals, or an attempt to instill wisdom -- they were 100% hindsight and started with the goal, and tried to rationalize the law -- cherry picking terms and misconstruing everything.


The legal arguments were to the US Suprme Court, whom by the way has members appointed from many different administrations, and constitute people from acrss the political spectrum.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
So, if you start with; "Well, I supported the war, and America is more or less good, and our troops are over there to protect and defend America." You started a conceptual argument built on a house of cards.


Again not at all. Afghanistan, the Taliban, were placed under Snactions by the UN in 1999, Under President CLinton, for refusing to expel Osama from their country. Pakistan actually froze all afghan assets in their country because of that. Your notion this is all Bushes fault is not correct, and ignores history because it does not support your argument.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
>> That's why I always start with; HOW SHOULD WE TREAT PEOPLE?


As we would like to be treated ourselves - However, I dont see anything on tv showing Americans cutting peoples heads off because they are of a certain religion, or taking exception to a countries foreign policy by flying planes into buildings killing 3k people from many idifferent nations, including muslim nations.

While you may consider waterboarding torture, when its over the person walks away. You cant say that to those who had their heads cut off can you?


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Torture, only helps despotic states. There is not ONE GOOD COUNTRY, that condones torture, and any country that does, has a lot of corruption and abuse. How we treat the least of our people, defines how good we are -- every damn time. I'm not saying that from a religious point of view -- I say that from a philosophical, humanistic, and studied point of view.


Fair point.. So how come you are also not condemning N. Korea, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, China, Sweden, the UK etc? If those actions so offend you and others, why are you just concentrating on the US?


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The Geneva convention says "some torture is good?" Even if it is there, we should not do it -- and every GOOD AMERICAN, should be calling out the hounds and finding SOME WAY, to put someone on trial who makes it a policy -- whether or not some Weasel Lawyer found an excuse. I'm really sick of this slippery slope and low bar of "in some cases, you know, adults understand that the world is a dangerous place, and we cannot be idealistic about..." I usually hear this from Christians, who might talk about learning from Jesus, and morals and everything and as soon as they talk foreign policy it's "Well, naive people might not know that there are folks out there who would chop your head off as soon as look at you...."


Yes by all means lets go aftert those who violate these laws.. You might wanna saddle up though and put together a possey, because its more than just the US.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
We can do better. I think I could also prove that our foreign policies over at least 6 decades has been total crap, counter-productive, and designed to enrich multinational corporations and SPEND AS MUCH AS CONCEIVABLY POSSIBLE ON DEFENSE AND CONTRACTORS.


Please explain to me what occured the first time we tried to negotiate with Muslim nations? Explain to me what prompted the US to send a delegation to speak to Muslim Nations.

If you dont know the answer, I can give it to you, or you can ask any Marine.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Reagan helped to prop up the USSR by building up the military. Bush helped keep the Theocracy in power in Iran. The ONE BEST WAY, to make sure you get a hard line, pro military bad ass in power -- is to be a pro military bad ass who threatens his country.


Reagan brought down the USSR, he didnt support it. Reagan hated communism. Your knowledge on history is a bit off there man.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Why do you think it's so important to highlight the "threat of 9/11" and not really point out that the "alleged" attackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and that there were more "al Qaeda" trained in Florida than Afghanistan?


Because prior to 9/11 it happened "over there". Only when it came to our shore did it become a problem. At the time these people trained here in America, you want to point out what American laws they violated? Just because you associate with people of questionable character does not make you guilty of any crime. If it did the Entire Government would be locked up by now. Further the founding fathers had their fair share of that crap, which is why you are innocent until proven guilty. Even going to a flight shcool and not showing any intrest in learning how to fly or land, while unusual, is not illegal. The schools themselves could have revoked and expelled those people from thier flight schools.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
>> So, why are we arguing about torture -- when it is wrong? We aren't talking about "the evil super criminal with a nuclear bomb" -- which rationalizes all arguments. We are talking about "a man suspected of being a taxi cab driver for an alleged terrorist who used to get backing from the CIA and now allegedly masterminded a terrorist attack but we cannot be bothered with tracking the credit card transactions for the alleged hijackers" -- and that dude was described as "#2 in Al Qaeda" at one time.


Lets put it this way - All wars are crimes.

If your neighbor comes to you and punches you in the face are you going to take it or defend yourself? If you choose to defend yourself, are you going to hit the person back, or are you going to walk down the street and find a random person and hit them in retaliation?

As far as your characterization of how can a taxi driver be this or that. How can a failed painter rise to a certain level, and by the time he is done, upwards of 50 million plus people are dead because he dicided he wanted the world?


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
So, the Neocons create a totally straw man, Jack Bower scenario, where any suspect has plutonium in his pocket, and in this world where they are right, they are allowed to do the most depraved things, without oversight, and when we find they embezzled millions (as all the last 5 RNC chairman have been found guilty of), we have to shrug our shoulders and say; "You know, war is messy."


Again, learn history.. The Republicans, nor the Democrats created anyone. When our problems with Islam started, there was not even a Democratic or Republican party in existance. Bin laden came about when the US assisted the muhajadeen in fighting the soviets. When to Soveits withdrew, US support ended, and this pissed of bin laden who had other plans. In this case we got bit by the dog we were feeding.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
>> Torture is wrong. It's bad policy. It does not SECURE anything. And, all these people working in the shadows, have fostered every bit of blowback that the US has been dealing with. History, sense, and honor go against it -- and I think there are some legal arguments to back me up. But why are you not trying to find some reason to throw Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld in a courtroom to MAKE SURE, they have not committed war crimes?


Correct.. and so is cutting of a civilkians head, or executing someone because they are not muslim, or for owning a cell phone, or because they wrote a blog criticising the polit bureau. While I agree with your outrage on torture, I dont subscribe to your blind blame for jus tthe US. If this type of behavior offends you and others so much, why did you tolerate it when it happened to other peope in other countries? Where were the masses during Bushs reelection? They had the chance to fire their asses, and instead watched tv and bitched. Complaining only does so much good.. Eventually you wither poop or get off the pot.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
What's the DOWNSIDE of a trial; future villains might have a disincentive to cause civil wars? I often hear Conservatives say; "You are going to dishonor our troops and make the US look bad." Yet, I constantly hear that all Liberals blame America first -- also, most Europeans and of course, anyone criticizing. Here is the BIG ISSUE: Almost everyone but well fed Capitalists and Neo Conservatives in America, already think America is NOT THAT HONORABLE. By putting Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld on trial, you would make a big statement to the world; Wow, maybe America actually walks the talk and does care about the nations they invade...


There is nothing wrong with a trial. What is wrong with holding enemy ombatants while we are still engaged in a military conflict with them? Where were the lawyers during WWII when we held Germans and Italians in camps? None of those people were charged until AFTER the war ended.

Also, where are the trials for those people who had their heads cut off?


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Instead, they hear excuses, see failure, and we look like the Keystone Cops of the world.


Actually we look like a bunch of idiots for the sole reason that this is all of a sudden a problem now. As I said before, the treaties with the UN and Dometic law are designed to prevent action. If someone gets drunk drives and kills a person, why on Gods Earth would people 10 years later start throwing a fit over that action?

As I said before, I have no issues with people who want to hold bush and them accountible. I just take exception to the facts that they ignore history, ignore actions of other countries and leaders, and go on this quest to hold a few people rsponsible for all the problems in the world.

That is naieve and disingenuous and an affront to those people who were killed because people decided that doing the right thing and opposing countries who abuse their oen people is to hard. Better to wait for a democratic style country to take action so you can protest from the safety of a chat room.

If you want to hold them accountible thats good. Just make sure you hoold EVERYONE accoutnbile, from Washington, to Berlin, to Beijing, to Kabul.

Anything less and its a hollow effort based on nothing more than wanting to scream at the sky.
edit on 13-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Please read the Geneva conventions, all 4 of them, the protocols, all 3 of them, in addition to the CAT, Laws of war, Chapter 7 article 52 of the UN Charter, as well as the Domestic and Military laws and Supreme Court decisions from the US Government for your answer.

and again, if this is such a problem for you, where is your argument to hold the Taliban, Alqueida, China, Sudan, N. Korea, Britain, Sweden etc accountible?

And to answer your other questions whats the downside of a trial - Noting.

Care to point out in UN treaties which say they must be charged immediately when captured in combat? You can look all you want, but its not there. And again we are allowed to hold combatants until the end of hostilities. There is plenty of UN / International law on that area.

Please quit trying to hold the US solely respoinsibe while ignoring all the other countries who do this crap.

If you want the US to abide by "International Law" then you must also require other countries to abide by those rules.

As an exmaple by the way of letter of the law and spirit of the law:

In almost every major US city there is an ordinance that says you cannot discharge a gun inside city limits unless at a range etc. If a person breaks into your house in the middle of the night, and threatens to kill you with a knife, would you grab your gun and shoot and kill him, or would you just sit there to be stabbed to death because the law ays you cant discharge your gun inside city limits? Your house is inside the city, making it ellgal to shoot.

What are you going to do?

What would you expect the Police or the PA to do with you?
edit on 13-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


There was no "coup" in Iraq, was there?

I also think that the US is the Signatory that matters. It's like saying that "I didn't cheat on my wife, because the woman I slept with did not take our marriage vows." So, that would mean, roughly 4 billion women are fair game, in my case. I mean, we've got an adultery here -- and some Liberals want a divorce. And YOUR argument is; "Well, until you can prove that the mistress in question, was NOT a signatory of the marriage contract, we cannot have a trial for divorce." You see, the mark of a BAD LEGAL PRECEDENT, is, there is NO WAY to ever hold someone accountable for a war crime -- I mean, use an extramarital affair as grounds for a divorce. Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld cannot be tried in court, because all things cannot be proven BEFORE we go to court, and we are summarily assuming that in all cases, the Defendant's supposition of the status of the injured party, and the legal definition of their country, are exactly correct -- AND, that some non--permissible act was not done.

See, first the defendants said; "We didn't have an affair, and cheating on your wife was bad."

We got photos of the affair. They tried to detain or kill the private eye we hired to get those photos.

There was a lot of misdirection of course. But finally, we got the idea that; "That wasn't really an affair, we were wrestling and our clothes slipped off." You know the "few bad apples argument," or "we have no policy." But the same activities were going on in Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries. So we have pictures with a Red Head, a Blonde, and a small pony of indeterminable hair color. You might use the excuse that it was the same wrestling move and the girl wore a wig once -- but you CANNOT explain the saddle. At, least, not to anyone who doesn't already watch Glen Beck for his genius.

Now there is a hearing, but it seems that the pony managed to hang itself in it's own stall and left a suicide letter. Nothing of course, seems suspicious. All the testimony, is taken from statements that the husband has made, and nobody is allowed to look at his bank receipts, or look in his dirty laundry where neighbors have stated they've seen a lot of silky lingerie. The fact that the husband has a history of extramarital affairs BEFORE the current marriage cannot be used as evidence.

Now, I don't know what Dick Cheney does with women, because his wife wrote a really strange book about western lesbians and raping horses (ahem), but he did sell weapons off market when he worked with contractors in the first Gulf War, and he did sell Saddam's oil when it was illegal, and he did make millions offshoring money to help rich guys avoid taxes and,... well I could go on for days about Rummy and Bush and a dozen others -- but we cannot use CHARACTER references -- we keep having to use a HYPOTHETICAL President and Vice President that have some sort of history of integrity and conscience.

We have no evidence that the husband, actually ever kissed his wife. But, we HAVE TO pretend that, the husband slept with another woman to keep our country safe from Nuclear DESTRUCTION.

I STARTED OUT IN JEST, BUT I THINK I'VE FINALLY COME UP WITH A GOOD ANALOGY FOR BUSH'S WAR POLICIES. We couldn't investigate 9/11 because it would make the enemy want to Nuke us. We couldn't investigate Pat Tillman's "friendly fire" two weeks before he was going to return and talk smack about the Afghan war -- because that would embolden the enemy. We couldn't find receipts when $9 Billion went missing in Iraq -- because, you know, someone would nuke ponies.

We cannot investigate war crimes, because, if, they were actually done to REAL PEOPLE, we would have a mushroom cloud -- or, Dick Cheney would be inconvenienced and embarrassed. Really, the biggest threat, I think is that we would find out that Dick Cheney, Bush and Rummy are GUILTY AS HELL, and Conservative supporters would have to admit, once in their lives, that they are wrong.


>>>>

I'm trying to put this in simple terms -- you've thrown a lot of legal jargon out that can be "interpreted." But what you are REALLY SAYING, is that, Torture must be proved, and you must prove the country still has a right to the treaties WE SIGNED, and that something worse didn't happen -- and THEN, you can try these people, unless we are at war, which we clearly are and will be for the next 50 years. We still have troops on the Korean border, and I'm sure a Bush lawyer can explain how we have never NOT been at war. THAT, argument, at least, does make sense.

>> Afghanistan, has no real central government, precisely BECAUSE so many countries have invaded them.

That would mean, the Geneva Convention only applies to strong countries, and any nation that gets the crap kicked out of them on a regular basis -- well, the poor saps that live there are no longer legally human. That means, Child predators, should have a field day in Haiti and Honduras -- no legitimate central governments.

And of course, Slavery is legal, as long as it's a small island with no signatories.

Which makes sense, these tend to be popular vacation spots for some of the more well to do psychopaths in our country.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
You also need to show us WHERE ARE THE BAD GUYS? Most of these "detainees" have been let go, or cannot be tried because they are basket cases -- and those are only the ones we know about. Missing are the unmarked graves, the torture boats floating around, the people in other countries screaming until their throats break. We don't have ONE CONVICTION of a real terrorist threat that is LEGAL. We almost had one trial -- but the evidence was all obtained via torture, and the guy wore a shock vest -- not exactly a trial you'd think would take place in America.


Zacarias Moussaoui
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali
Ahmed Ghailani
Libert City 7
Richar Reid
Jose Padilla
Christopher Paul
Buffalo Six
Lyman Faris
Virginia Jihad Network
Dhiren Barot
Shahawar Siraj
Yassin Aref
Mohammed Hossain
Hamid and Umer Hayat
Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana
Toledo Terror Plot
Syed Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee
Assem Hammoud


March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Mohammedalso plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton.


Fort Dix Attack


These are just a few of the conviction, and almost all in US Civilian Courts.

US Military Tribunal Convictions - 20 Cases to date, only 3 have been prosecuted. - We are still at war, and not all the people who have been captured are going to face charges. This has been cited time and again both by Bush and Obama. Those not charged will be held until the hostilities are overwith, at which time they either must be charged, or returned to thir country of origion provided they will not be executed upon returning.

Care to provide us with info / sources about the executions and prison ships?



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
There was no "coup" in Iraq, was there?


Actually yes there were - A lot of them. The most recent leader in IRaq who gained his position by coup?

Sadam Hussein


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I also think that the US is the Signatory that matters. It's like saying that "I didn't cheat on my wife, because the woman I slept with did not take our marriage vows." So, that would mean, roughly 4 billion women are fair game, in my case. I mean, we've got an adultery here -- and some Liberals want a divorce.


And again, so are other countries yet I dont see any arguments coming from people against them. This is why I take exception to these arguments. Its funny to see people aregue that the US MUST abide by treaties, while ignoring those who dont. Hence the reason, IMO, the reason people are going after Bush is because they dont agree with his actions as PResident, from military to Domestic to Foreign POolicy. The argument about actions towards Al Queida, again imo, are an excuse only.

If it were more, then in addition to complaining about US actions, it would also include other countries, including afghanistan, Iraw etc.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
And YOUR argument is; "Well, until you can prove that the mistress in question, was NOT a signatory of the marriage contract, we cannot have a trial for divorce." You see, the mark of a BAD LEGAL PRECEDENT, is, there is NO WAY to ever hold someone accountable for a war crime -- I mean, use an extramarital affair as grounds for a divorce. Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld cannot be tried in court, because all things cannot be proven BEFORE we go to court, and we are summarily assuming that in all cases, the Defendant's supposition of the status of the injured party, and the legal definition of their country, are exactly correct -- AND, that some non--permissible act was not done.


Proof of legal standing is required in these situations, since it goes to actions that can and cannot be taken against opposing forces, in adiition to what is acceptable and not. As I said if this really mattered to people, they would be yelling about other countries in addition to the US.

Sadly Amnesty International has a better track record than most of the people who feel bush is a war criminal. As much as Amnesy International annoys me with some of their findings, they at least take the hard action, holding non democratic countries accountible and fighting them to improve their conditions. Instead of yelling during a media event solely to make the news.

Actions are more important than words and words can be ignored, but actions are there.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
See, first the defendants said; "We didn't have an affair, and cheating on your wife was bad."

We got photos of the affair. They tried to detain or kill the private eye we hired to get those photos.


Enough with the marriage anaolgy please. What you fail to see in that argument is in order for 2 people to be married, they enter into an agreement to comit to each other. When that agreement is broke, there are actions that can be taken on both sides, from mending fences, to divorce.

In your anaolgy divorce is wheer we are at with Taliban. Instead of them abiding by the Pre Nup, they want it all.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
There was a lot of misdirection of course. But finally, we got the idea that; "That wasn't really an affair, we were wrestling and our clothes slipped off." You know the "few bad apples argument," or "we have no policy." But the same activities were going on in Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries. So we have pictures with a Red Head, a Blonde, and a small pony of indeterminable hair color. You might use the excuse that it was the same wrestling move and the girl wore a wig once -- but you CANNOT explain the saddle. At, least, not to anyone who doesn't already watch Glen Beck for his genius.


Your ivocation of Glenn Beck has nothing at all to do with any of this, aside a failed attempt to associate anyone with a diffeering opinion of being in the same boat as he is. FAIL argument, anything dealing with Marriage.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I'm trying to put this in simple terms -- you've thrown a lot of legal jargon out that can be "interpreted." But what you are REALLY SAYING, is that, Torture must be proved, and you must prove the country still has a right to the treaties WE SIGNED, and that something worse didn't happen -- and THEN, you can try these people, unless we are at war, which we clearly are and will be for the next 50 years. We still have troops on the Korean border, and I'm sure a Bush lawyer can explain how we have never NOT been at war. THAT, argument, at least, does make sense.


As with your marriage analogy, if the 2 sides dont abide by their agreements (Prenuptials, etc) then a Judge can punish one or both parties.

We can argue this all day, but what you really need to do is go read the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, Chapter 7 - Breach of Peace and self defense, CAT, IHL, Rules of War, the 3 protocols for the genevea conventions, and International law adopted after nuremberg that deals with hostilities when one nation is not a signatory.

And again, any reason you specifically keep invoking Bush and the treaties you say we ignored, while ignroing other countries, including Afghanistan?


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
>> Afghanistan, has no real central government, precisely BECAUSE so many countries have invaded them.


The last time Afghanistan was invaded was by the Soveits in the 80's. Prior to that they have not had a stable or recognized government since 1953. From that date on up until the Soviet Invasio, the only combat operations that took place were between factions fighting for control.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
That would mean, the Geneva Convention only applies to strong countries, and any nation that gets the crap kicked out of them on a regular basis -- well, the poor saps that live there are no longer legally human. That means, Child predators, should have a field day in Haiti and Honduras -- no legitimate central governments.


Well, you are incorrect here. And if the people of Afghanistan made an attempt to move into the 21st century instead of trying to revert back to the 9th, they might be better off than they are now. As I said about Japan, if you dont like the actions we take, then dont provoke a war with us. The Taliban could have asily used the UN to work issues out, instead they did not want anything to do with them.

Also, you need to understand the distinction between laws and internal matters of a country, and international laws and treaties between nations. Completely different.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
And of course, Slavery is legal, as long as it's a small island with no signatories.


So are you advocating that a country has a right to invade another because they opress their people and ignore basic human rights? Or is that only acceptable to countries who are not the US?


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Which makes sense, these tend to be popular vacation spots for some of the more well to do psychopaths in our country.


Again, all the blame is here in the US. Under UN agreements, countries are not allowed to execute children. Iran is a signaotry to that same convention. They justlie about the age of the person, and when they dont, they say its no one elses business. Why is Iran able to ignore that with absoutely no action from you?

If you are so determined for us to abide by treaties, and that those treaties must be followed, then, again, where are your supporting arguments against, IRan, Iran, Yemen, China, Britain, N. Korea, Sudan??
edit on 13-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You keep talking about Muslims cutting off people's heads. That has NOTHING to do with US actions. The same thing with war crimes. If we only enforce laws that NOBODY IN THE WORLD OR HISTORY has committed as well -- then we enforce nothing. I'm sure that England is also committing atrocities. So what? Your defense of the Mob Boss is that there are other Mob Boss's. If I go to court next time for speeding -- I'll try and quote you but I don't think it will help. I think I mentioned somewhere that our country is lawless -- the FACT that there has been little investigation and no move to bring forth war crimes is NOT an indicator that nothing bad has happened -- it's an indication that our Justice Department is broken for anyone above a certain income.

You mentioned "sanctions" of the Taliban as if it means something. Am I to assume that your premise is; if you live in a messed up country -- you have no civil rights?

You need to point to something in the Geneva Conventions that ALLOWS for torture.

AGAIN, you also misconstrue the 3 TYPES OF TREATIES. The Geneva Conventions was ratified by a super majority -- it isn't one of those Presidential signing statements. It supersedes our laws and RESTRICTS our Federal Government. Your argument that "it can grant no powers to the Fed" -- hard to argue with that kind of logic, because it's kind of opposite of logic.


>> The Supreme Court does not draw from all sorts of political persuasions -- it's a gaggle of fascists. They recently voted to allow corporations to have rights like people. That money should equal political representation. And they've opened the floodgates for foreign multinationals to "invest" in our candidates. Fascists are running things and we have a military that tortures and uses "indefinite detention" -- you know what Fascist government's do? Find excuses for torture. Indefinitely detain people.

Evidence of the actions of this nation and of our clandestine services, doing nothing but overthrowing governments that don't allow "access" by our friendly corporations is dismissed as EVIDENCE that we have an attitude problem with the USA.

AS with the Marriage Analogy -- once again, you MISS THE ENTIRE POINT. I'm getting a bit silly because it's late, and I'm frustrated that you can quote something but not comprehend it. MY POINT: The WIFE wants a divorce because she says the man has cheated -- and your counter argument is; YOU CANNOT SUE FOR DIVORCE because the woman I had the affair with was not part of the agreement. The Taliban, CANNOT break the marriage agreement, pre-nup or whatever.

Again -- I WANT A TRIAL -- the poor slobs who are getting tortured for God knows what reason because it certainly did NOTHING for security want a dang trial. You say; NO TRIAL. I say TRIAL -- how much more simpler can I get this and YOU NOT GET IT?

I referenced GLENN BECK not because I think anyone who disagrees with me is a follower of his -- I say it because you have his same kind of logic. It's like I'm arguing about the color ORANGE with someone who is color blind. You cannot seem to recognize that you keep on discrediting your own legal arguments.

>> All of your PROOFS that we have no treaty we need to abide by, REQUIRE proof in a court of law -- nobody has PROVED that someone picked up in Afghanistan has no rights under the Geneva Convention.

IN a real justice system; if you have a crime committed, and injured party, and a suspect -- you go to trial. We have people tortured, indefinitely detained -- the CRIME is evident. It has been publicly admitted by both Rumsfeld and Cheney -- now, if they want to say it was a "permissible torture" -- they can use that argument in a court of law.

CRIME COMMITTED and EVIDENCE then requires that the DEFENDANT(S) prove their "theories" as to why it was OK to commit this crime -- but that will never happen. So I say; "Hell yes I'm going to all them War Criminals and I applaud anyone else who does." I will go to my grave and teach my children that just because they never paid for their crimes -- and that the US steals what it wants -- doesn't make it OK. We also could go on for days about motives -- and how the defendant talked about Democracy, Security, and finally settled on; "Well, these nations are now so been messed up, so we have to maintain the peace."



As I said about Japan, if you dont like the actions we take, then dont provoke a war with us.

>> You would have a POINT there if any of these countries actually PROVOKED a war with us. The "war crimes" are NOT just about torture -- they are about an unprovoked and unapproved invasion. I know, we haven't really followed this in a few generations -- but CONGRESS did not approve the war -- it was a weird "contingent upon finding WMD's" provision. The case made for going to war, was based upon PROPAGANDA that the Defendant(s) put into circulation themselves. The ACTUAL case before us, is not a hypothetical. The Bush administration, had scores of people trying to find evidence of WMDs -- and everything came back "NEGATIVE" so then they fixed the facts to justify their invasion. They invaded Afghanistan and installed a UNOCAL executive and CIA asset as President. They invaded Iraq for Bush's legacy and to put Oil Companies back in charge -- that's what I allege and that THEORY fits the reality better than the excuses you mention. The WAR CRIMES are also about war profiteering and treason. The evidence is staggering and voluminous.

>> Can I assume you voted for Bush? Twice? Of course, you can assume I'm a Progressive, and that my philosophy is "of a certain persuasion." I've made good decisions and I'm a good person. I want my country to be good -- but you don't get there by making excuses for "necessary evils." ALL EVIL IS NECESSARY to the people who perpetrate it.

You make good use of citations -- but I think that YOUR PROOFS are untested. I've seen them quoted by the Bush administration as well. WE have to ignore all the BIG LETTERED WORDS IN BOLD, and go to the footnotes to say that in some cases, we can torture people and invade countries if the wind is right. Again; we have war crimes committed -- there needs to be a trial. The lawyers might use your citations as a defense -- and it might work because many nations are very happy with the status quo and wars for profit because they are most afraid of their own people.

And seriously, if I ever met someone ARGUING FOR TORTURE -- I don't give a damn if it is legal or not. Sorry to make the Nazis reference, but it is very appropriate, everything Hitler did was legal as well, and the Germans were sticklers for rules.

Again, all the blame is here in the US. Under UN agreements, countries are not allowed to execute children. Iran is a signaotry to that same convention. They justlie about the age of the person, and when they dont, they say its no one elses business. Why is Iran able to ignore that with absoutely no action from you?
If I were in Iran -- I'd be screaming for the head of every man who abused a kid -- whether or not our country signed a treaty or law to that effect.

I'm a citizen here in the USA -- that's what I care about. INVADING Iran is a whole different discussion and would require killing a lot more children than we would be saving. We didn't invade Afghanistan to improve that country -- and we HAVE NOT.

The net result of our invasions has made both countries worse off. We have done everything that we accused Saddam of doing. Your point?



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
The rapturous applause he receives is beyond comprehension and has shook my faith in humanity a bit. The chants of 'USA USA' sound utterly absurd...like something from 1930s Germany. I can't believe anyone in the US still support this guy, this video is scary



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
lots of class on the ron paul side.


really want these idiots as neighbors.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


No, we didnt invade Afghanistan to improve their country. We invaded because an unwarranted,, unprovoked attack on civilians on 9/11 occured, and the Taliban decided to protect bin laden instead of handing him over. And again on this point, there us a UN sanction in place from 1999 demanding bin laden be expeeled from Afghanistan. They made their own bed here.

You need to go back and read my posts and the info linked. You keep coming back at me, asking for proof something is allowed, I give you the answer AND cite the source and you ignore it.

I keep coming back to the Taliban and Al Quieda and cutting peoples heads off, because the rules you hold dear are being ignred by them, constituting war crimes as well. Kidnapping non military people, meaning civilians who are in no way part of any armed unit from any nation, are kidnapped, held hostage with the demand that whatever the nationality of the civilian is, that government must remove all military presence.

When that is not done, the person is dragged in front of a video camera, where masked cowards behind them rant from the Quran, then execute the civilian.

The routinely use Hospitals, Schools and Mosques to fight from as well as store ammunitions and supplies, which is a violation of the rules of war you guys hold so high.

Civilians are used as human shields, murdered by Taliban / Al Queida forces, summarily, if they are though to be working for the US, or when they dont support the Taliban / Al Queida.

Again, reprisals against civilians are a violation fo the rules of war you guys hold so high.

Its almost like you dont want to accept the answers because it does not support your argument. Go back and read my info and the sources for your answers. Absent that you are just going to keep asking the same question over and over, nut the answers are still the same.

So, as I said before, I find it funny that you anda few others make the argument Bush is a war criminal, and that the US is violating laws left and right, yet you guys make no mention or argument against the acts of the Taliban or Al queids.

If you think all countries comply with these laws, and the US is just making it up as we go along, then travel to afganistan, make contact with the taliban and watch what happens to you.

I am guessing based on your argument that you are ok with outright murder.

If you werent then you would be holding ALL countries involved accountible. And you guys keep claiming your arguments arent politically motivated.
edit on 13-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


don't hurt yourself banging your head against

his/her brickwall mentality.


you are spot on.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Internet Explorer
The rapturous applause he receives is beyond comprehension and has shook my faith in humanity a bit. The chants of 'USA USA' sound utterly absurd...like something from 1930s Germany. I can't believe anyone in the US still support this guy, this video is scary


So when a minor is hung, or a female is buried to her chest and stoned to death, or a person is decapitated, all to the chant of allhuh ackbar, you find that acceptable..

Riiight.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The Courts decision did not prohibit the use of military tribuanls for captured combatants provided it is done within the confines of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions because they provided more protections that the military tribunals the Bush Administration wanted. What you are leaving out of the Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld court case is its continuation.
The Military Commissions Acts are not a ‘continuation,’ they are a result of the rulings of the Supreme Court. The Acts are completely irrelevant to the findings in Hamdan that Common Article 3 applies, and that is my argument, not that the US can’t use military tribunals to try captured combatants, as you apparently are trying to shift the conversation to. I have never argued military tribunals couldn’t be used.


In this case you keep coming back to Hamden, yet ignore the resulting legislation that corrected the ruling and established new guildlines that are now legal.
It’s obvious from this statement that you are distorting things. Legislation was passed to comply with the rulings. And that’s what happened with the Military Commissions Acts, because the Supreme Court found that the commissions initially set up by the Bush administration were in violation of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. The Acts were to correct this, not the Supreme Court rulings.

You seem to be implying that, because legislation was passed to correct the flaws and illegal nature of the commissions initially in place, Common Article 3 no longer applies. Which, of course, is not the case.

The implication of Hamdan — and this is why I keep coming back to it — is that the Geneva Conventions, at least Common Article 3, applies, otherwise there would be no violation of the Conventions by the initial military commissions, nor would there even be any reason to rule on the merits of the Conventions as applied to the detainees.



Please justify to me why you want to hold the US responsible for our actions, while you completely and totally ignore Taliban / Alquieda actions.
We’ve been over this. I don’t ignore anyone’s actions, but I am more concerned about the US government’s actions because it is my government. Is it really surprising that I care and I’m concerned about what my government does and how it spends my taxes?


Please dont make this personal. I have not made anything up and have provided links to all the sources I have been using.
Since when asking for substantiation of one’s claims is “making it personal”? You have provided many links, but none of them address nor answer what I have asked you.


In order for an agreement to be legally binding, the Governments who signed those treaties agree to certain terms. When aGovernment is removed from power via a Coup, the agreements become null and void because:
I understand this is your opinion, but I asked you for the legal foundations for this opinion.

The Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled that Common Article 3 applied because the conflict was in the territory of a signatory, so they clearly disagree with your opinion. This is not personal but I give more weight to the opinions of the Supreme Court than yours, especially when yours aren’t backed up by citations of any legal authority. I’m sure you understand.

My argument is pretty straightforward: the Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the detainees of the “war on terror,” because the conflict is in the territory of a signatory.

What you are arguing is that since the government of Afghanistan wasn’t the legitimate government, Afghanistan is no longer considered a signatory and the Conventions, therefore, are not enforced.

So my request was, and is, quite simple: what is the legal authority to back up the aforementioned claim. That’s all I’m asking.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I appreciate Xchandra's ATTEMPT to rationalize the Bush policies -- but it's really hard to go through ALL the postings. "Read the Articles of X" is not a reply -- it doesn't POINT to anything remotely condoning torture or the Bush policies-- and I don't have time to read all this stuff to RE-CONVINCE myself that Bush was and still is a huge threat to our country. Bush's lawyers, have pointed to these same documents, and constantly misinterpret the SPIRIT of the law. It's like playing WACK-A-MOLE.

WE always go back to the "Afghanistan attacked us" justification -- you might as well say we were Attacked by Florida. By this yardstick, India can now invade the United States, because a US citizen was involved in a terrorist attack on a train. Xchandra keeps taking at FACE VALUE, specious arguments from the accused war criminals -- as if these are SETTLED and FACTS. We have NO SETTLED FACTS on who actually attacked us on 9/11 -- and even if you accept the "FACTS", the training was NOT done in Afghanistan, none of the alleged hijackers was from Afghanistan -- the ONLY person remotely related to Afghanistan was Bin Laden -- and he's a Saudi Prince. Afghanistan as a NATION, did not plan, or materially support the attack. The connection to Bin Laden is tenuous and the FBI does not even want him in regard to 9/11 -- the video where Bin Laden takes credit for the attack, was a proven forgery, probably by Italian or Pakistani intelligence agencies.

The big problem, with the REPLIES, is that, like in the case of "Where are the Bad guys" -- I'm clearly saying, where are the convictions from DETAINED people who were tortured. That list shrinks to about three or four. Giving me every terrorist arrest -- when you aren't even noting that this is about JUSTIFYING WAR CRIMES --- Moussoui and the rest, are NOT from the Iraq and Afghan wars. And most of these cases, even without weaning out the ones that have NOTHING to do with military action, are clearly bogus.

It's ONLY 4 people who have been tried from the hundreds of detainees -- and clearly, none were a significant threat, even allowing for the exaggerations and the desperate need to legitimize the resource wars. Could we have gotten more convictions without torture - very likely.

The Miami 7? Seriously, most of these arrests are bogus. These poor stooges were handled by the FBI for years and GIVEN their shoes and plans -- they'd otherwise be knocking over a liquor store or joining a gang. That kind of describes the MAJORITY of threats that Homeland security and the FBI have trotted out. Invading two nations and spending $2 Trillion on this fiasco provided zero security. Around a million people are now involved in "security" in this nation -- and they are LESS ABLE to identify real threats because there are so many more bogus ones and too many people without real skill trying to justify their jobs are stepping over each other in a race to find the next "al Qaeda" agent who ten years ago, would be considered just another delusional nuisance.

>> My attacks on the courts are NOT to "win the argument" -- that is part and parcel of my argument. I don't want to spend any more time on this -- picking apart the court cases. As we all have heard, a "Federal Prosecutor can convict a ham sandwich."

THE CORRECT answer for Number of Bad guys convicted from the illegal torture and detaining is 4.

And of course, this Xchandra fellow, thinks we are UNDER THREAT AND AT WAR. This is an eternal war, because every time we bomb someone, we have family members who hate us. It's not like a REAL THREAT as in WW II -- it's failed nation states, and little pockets of people angry at our support of their tyrants.

>> Let's hope that the Muslims wake up to the Democracy movement occurring in Egypt -- and understand that by joining Wahabist groups and "Al Qaeda" they are about as much a threat to their despotic governments as the Tea Bagger movement in the USA. These are bogus "Emmanuel Goldstein" groups, that are used to redirect the opposition parties and justify the hard line despotic policies.

Without the continuous threats of the US, Iran would have never elected a man like Amedinijad.

So, everywhere that our Military and CIA can't take control -- it seems like things are getting better. Hopefully, the people movements will get ahead of our "War on Terror" that creates new markets for Kleptocrats and creates more enemies to feed the need for a Security State in the USA.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 




I mean, there was even a court case that was going to go against the BUSH FAMILY, for creating an estimated $17 Billion in forged federal notes. This and the ENRON investigation went up in smoke in Building 7, a month before some Bush family members would need to go to federal prison. Just one of the many coincidences in this group.


This is interesting, first I ever heard of it, Please tell us which Bush family members were involved, and other saucy details.

But more interestingly, please expand upon the WTC7 link. What exactly are you implying?



I didn't IMPLY anything. I merely stated; that the Bush family had been indicted IN COURT, for Federal Note fraud, and it was going to go against them -- and then, the evidence got destroyed one month before they would have to go to prison.

Now, why this wasn't NEWSWORTHY and on the TV -- I don't know.

Just Google:
Bardy/Durham bond fraud of September 11, 1991

The same corporations like Goldman Sachs, Haliburton and Carlysle Group which saw enormous profits since 9/11 -- had a lot of evidence of their many crimes. The destruction of building 7 brought an end to quite a few investigations - especially for the Bush family. It's amazing how fortunate they all were with this "collapse due to fire." The third one ever in history for a steel building.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Aptness,

Thanks for taking on the LEGAL arguments head-on. My main problem is -- I just don't want to take the HOURS of reading and tracking down it requires to rebut the "point at a wikipedia page" points that Xchandra is making.

There also is the FRUSTRATION that he needs a time-line. He points to "AFTER THE FACT" legal actions that were used to CYA the Bush administration. There is a clear lack of reading comprehension when pointing to legal arguments that don't mean what he thinks they mean.

I'm just tired of the whole thing -- I'm mostly frustrated that we had one atrocity, week after week and an assault on the Constitution, Liberty, and common sense with the Bush administration -- and now with Obama, we still get no justice. The courts are broken.

I can't think of any procedure or law of import that the Bush administration DID NOT BREAK. Domestic spying was a huge deal, and they were doing it BEFORE 9/11. They had a pipe going from AT&T to Rumsfeld's task force. They threw their net wide and deep and this wasn't just looking for Al Qaeda suspects.

Nobody has tracked down the Anthrax that came out of a lab in Delaware --- or asked John McCain who the "three other experts were" who told him it came from Afghanistan. The one suspect committed suicide like the DC Madam -- case closed. So John McCain knows three more suspects than the FBI does apparently.

>> It's just overwhelming and it's too much like Wack-A-Mole with these guys. Everything they are NOT directly debating about, is TRUE as far as Bush is concerned -- so when you are done saying that "torture was not remotely LEGAL when the Bush administration made it their policy" -- they come back with the NEED IN THE WAR. When you are on the subject of; "The Downing Street Memos and the manufacturing of the NEED for the WAR" -- well, then some other FACT that is not a fact at all, is brought up.

1) Why did the Bush administration LIE about their methods, if they thought they were legal?
2) The EVIDENCE of WMDs was manufactured -- so WHAT legitimized the invasions?
3) Afghanistan had almost NO CONNECTION with the 9/11 attack. WE could dispute the connection of who actually carried out the 9/11 bombing -- I mean, we've even documented that the White House called the FBI and ordered them NOT TO FOLLOW FINANCIAL DATA LEADS of the hijackers -- and obstructed the investigation for years. When they finally had a 9/11 Commission -- the Commissioners themselves wrote a book about "not being to actually conduct a proper investigation and being obstructed." We spent more money trying to convict Clinton than we did investigating 9/11.
4) Since we had no LEGITIMATE invasion -- the WAR itself is considered a war crime.
5) The idea that the Geneva Conventions do not prohibit torture, or that if they did, the detainees do not qualify, or if they do qualify -- there was actually a need (which has not been established) -- and on top of that, the invasion, once again, was for BOGUS REASONS -- so folks like Xchandra, are saying that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld shouldn't be on trial, because their clever legal argument says; "No crime was committed." Well, I think that clever opinion needs to be tested in court. When a crime is committed, and you have a motive and a suspect -- you have a trial.


>> And since we will never have a trial -- I'll call Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld and all the rest of their gang of thieves War Criminals, and I will tell my children what they are. And I will spit on their graves when they finally bury these parasites. That is the only satisfaction I can get in this country and I will take it.

So have all the mock "honors" you want War Criminals. You can convince people watching the TV news that you are some kind of statesmen -- but the people who matter -- the people who know what is going on; we know what you are.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Internet Explorer
The rapturous applause he receives is beyond comprehension and has shook my faith in humanity a bit. The chants of 'USA USA' sound utterly absurd...like something from 1930s Germany. I can't believe anyone in the US still support this guy, this video is scary


So when a minor is hung, or a female is buried to her chest and stoned to death, or a person is decapitated, all to the chant of allhuh ackbar, you find that acceptable..

Riiight.


We've been sending Billions of dollars to Egypt to prop up their despot. And we USED to send billions to Iraq to prop up Saddam Hussein until he kicked out the Oil Companies.

So are you for or against the atrocities that Saddam did when he was our ally, or that Egypt has done for 3 decades? I'm guessing, it wasn't an issue for you, until some Conservative PR hack told you how awful it is that Muslim's bury females up their chests...

... most of the atrocities you are talking about, are done in the nations that the USA supports. Yes, Iran does too -- but not to the level of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

There are atrocities going on in the USA -- we joke about prison conditions. We have people who die because they are poor -- it's the number one factor of life expectancy. There were reporters and whistle-blowers held without trial.

>> Stop putting words in people's mouths. We don't condone the BAD THINGS that happen in Afghanistan. The Taliban is awful -- and the group we put in power is awful, and his brother is the major exporter of Heroine now.


Iraq and Afghanistan are WORSE off than before we invaded -- yet you want to claim that the deaths are from a "civil war" -- well, who created those conditions? The reason we know these countries are worse off, is because of documents leaked by WikiLeaks -- but I'm sure, your rebuttal will be on what the Stenographers in our Media have gleaned from military PR.

We did not invade Afghanistan and Iraq to stop atrocities -- that is nonsense. And the Bush administration, did a worse job managing the peace than I ever imagined they would. It is impossible for me to tell, if they were just myopic ignorant fools, or intentionally wanted the country to fall apart. And of course, I could spend days documenting all the BRAIN DEAD things they did. But, we'd have to have another court case over Reckless Endangerment. After they are hung for war crimes, treason, and war profiteering -- does it really matter at that point?

The #1 man who funds Wahabist schools, is a major investor in Fox News. Fox News loves to cover the anti-muslim fervor wherever it may be on display. America looks really bad, because we do not punish those who abuse power, and we allow propagandists to continually spout nonsense and never call them to task. People have a false idea about what is going on with our wars, because they are LIED TO, and people are paid to do it -- and there is no repercussion when they are caught.

Fox News staged the entire controversy with ACORN. They were caught at it. One of their reporters was actually trained with the CIA. They then went on to bug the office of a Senator -- the Senator who chaired the investigation into the Christmas bomber. It seems the CIA forced the State Department to let him on the plane after they wanted him kept off -- so, you can add another "terrorist" with a background that seems tied to a PRETEND WAR ON TERROR.

There are a lot of people who think there is a war on terror -- but then they don't get the behind-the-scenes dirt and controversy that almost always seems to point to manipulation of the media and staged attacks. So a lot of these "FACTS" of the threat, are not what I consider facts -- but if three news agencies report on the reporting of the falsehood -- it then becomes part of the debate.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Ron Paul will never get anywhere until he distances himself from this "Conservative" label. It has too many negative connotations to ever be taken seriously again in this country.

"Conservative" means stodgy, unwilling to take risks and usually close-minded with social affairs.

Ron Paul is none of this. So, why even bother with that label?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
The Military Commissions Acts are not a ‘continuation,’ they are a result of the rulings of the Supreme Court. The Acts are completely irrelevant to the findings in Hamdan that Common Article 3 applies, and that is my argument, not that the US can’t use military tribunals to try captured combatants, as you apparently are trying to shift the conversation to. I have never argued military tribunals couldn’t be used.


Right, I understand what your argument is with regards to Hamden. The Military Commission Act of 2006 is a result of that Supreme Court Ruling. It addressed the deficiencies the Supreme Court noted in their ruling. It is a direct continuation of Hamdi, because if that case never came up there would have been no need to draft a congressional bill.


Originally posted by aptness
It’s obvious from this statement that you are distorting things. Legislation was passed to comply with the rulings. And that’s what happened with the Military Commissions Acts, because the Supreme Court found that the commissions initially set up by the Bush administration were in violation of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. The Acts were to correct this, not the Supreme Court rulings.


Which ius exactly what I said, pointing out the Supreme Court made their ruling and noting that the UCMJ and Genever Conention provided for greater protections of capture enemy combatants than what the Bush plan called for. I did not distory anything, I put it in my response. As I said, the Military Comission Act of 2006 was a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling in Hamden.


Originally posted by aptness
You seem to be implying that, because legislation was passed to correct the flaws and illegal nature of the commissions initially in place, Common Article 3 no longer applies. Which, of course, is not the case.


I never implied that at all.


Originally posted by aptness
The implication of Hamdan — and this is why I keep coming back to it — is that the Geneva Conventions, at least Common Article 3, applies, otherwise there would be no violation of the Conventions by the initial military commissions, nor would there even be any reason to rule on the merits of the Conventions as applied to the detainees.


Yes it applies. As I have said many many times now. The source of the disagreement comes in when you insist the Conventions are being violated while ignoring the legal basis that they are Federal Law, and as such can be amended, changed etc.


Originally posted by aptness
We’ve been over this. I don’t ignore anyone’s actions, but I am more concerned about the US government’s actions because it is my government. Is it really surprising that I care and I’m concerned about what my government does and how it spends my taxes?


Not at all and I commend you for taking an active intrest in what your and my Government is doing. But you did not answer the question. Why have you not pointed out / gone after / condemned the actions of the Taliban or Al Queida? To me, depriving a capture enemy combatent of sleep is a whole lot less lethal than Al Queida / Taliban cutting someones head off, who is not even part of any military.

Thats where my irritation comes in - that we demand people be treated in a certain manner, while ignoring the plight of those people who dont live in the US. Its illegal to discharge a fire arm within the City limits where I work. This does not mean a person walking down the street, who carries a valid CCW and is armed, is precluded from using lethal force within city limits to defend himself or others. So while its not only illegal to discharge a wepaon in city limits, its also against the law to kill a person. However, there are exigent circumstances which come into play.

Why?

Because at somepoint in the hypothetical above a person decided they were not bound by those laws, and decided they were going to go after "law abiding citizens". Laws are meant to be premptive / proactive, to deter certain behavior. They are not meant as a suicide pact that alows those who violate it carte blanche to rob / pillage / plunder / kill law abiding citizens. At the same time its not meant as a death sentence to law abiding citizens, who, if we used your interpretation of laws / treaties, would be required to get on their knees to face execution without the ability to defend themselves, because by doing so would be violating the law.

Just like the Geneva Conventions specifically states, a party who violates those conventions are not protected by them.



Originally posted by aptness
Since when asking for substantiation of one’s claims is “making it personal”? You have provided many links, but none of them address nor answer what I have asked you.


I am referring to the suggestion that I was making this stuff up. And yes, I have provided you and others with all the info, you guys just choose to ignore it. Case in point is your continued argument surrounding the CAT and Geneva Convention. They are not higher than our Constitution, they are part of the Body of FEderal Law and as such can be challeneged in US courts like any other law. We can cite UN agreements / treaties etc all day and all night, but in the end it does not change that fact. Ignoring it because the outcome does not support your argument is the breakdown.


Originally posted by aptness
I understand this is your opinion, but I asked you for the legal foundations for this opinion.


Well for starters is not my opinion - I refer you to the many many links / sources I have provided to you.

I will try again, here is some more resources for you.

Easy answer - Treaty - Wikipedia

More in depth Answer

Jus Cogens

UN International Law Comission
Vienna Convention on Treaties May 22 1969
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations

Body of Text - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986

You contend that the moment a country signs an international multi lateral agreement, that treaty is in effect until such time as a country officaly withdraws from it. By extension, and by your argument, you face 2 problems.

If the Taliban are bound by it, then they violated all 4 Geneva conventions, all protocols, CAT, IHL, ROW in addition to just about every other international agreement there is. Because of those actions, they are in materially breach of those treaties, invalidating their participation in them. By extension their actions on the battlefield do not afford their people protections under those agreements

If the Taliban are not bound by it, which is my argument based on the International Law of Treaties that specifically stipulate that materially breach of agreements void them. in addition to the UN not recognizing the Taliban as anything more than a Faction, the Taliban have never declared their acceptance or intent to abide by treaties the former and offical government of afghanistan signed. UN treaties allow for entities who fall outside of the definition of "Full authority", who are not bound by un treaty, to abide by UN treaties.

A current example of this practice is Egypt. Even though the military took control and dissolved the Government (all of it) they publicly announced they are still going to abide by all treaties that have been signed and are in place.

As I have stated before, when a group is not the recognized government, then they are not bound by any agreements any former government signed. If they were "respectfull" of that, then chances are their would not be a coup in the first place. The methods for the introduction, suspension, withdrawl or termination of treaties, or in this case a multilateral international treaty between states (Countries) and a non government entity (The UN) is specific and is governed by the UN International Law on Treaties and 3rd party entities.


Suspension and termination

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.



Originally posted by aptness
The Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled that Common Article 3 applied because the conflict was in the territory of a signatory, so they clearly disagree with your opinion. This is not personal but I give more weight to the opinions of the Supreme Court than yours, especially when yours aren’t backed up by citations of any legal authority. I’m sure you understand.


I completely understand, see above for my legal basis. I still maintain your acceptance of Hamden while continuing to ignore the Military Comission Act of 2006 and its allowances is cherrypicking your supporting information. All of the issues the Supreme Court found with Hamden were rectified by the Act, which allowed the tribunals and contnued processing of enemy combatants.


Originally posted by aptness
My argument is pretty straightforward: the Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the detainees of the “war on terror,” because the conflict is in the territory of a signatory.

What you are arguing is that since the government of Afghanistan wasn’t the legitimate government, Afghanistan is no longer considered a signatory and the Conventions, therefore, are not enforced.

So my request was, and is, quite simple: what is the legal authority to back up the aforementioned claim. That’s all I’m asking.


The courts did not rule the 3rd Geneva Convention applied because Afghanistan was a signatory nation. Their arguments based on the Geneva convention dealt solely with the manner the tribunals were setup, noting they violated the UCMJ as well as the 3rd Geneva Convention (because they were incorperated into the UCMJ). The resulting of their ruling was based soely on the fact the PResident does not have the authority to establish a tribunal that deals with removing protections from detainees, because the PResident doe not have the authority to alter UCMJ law / procedures.

The act of modifiying or interpreting the UCMJ falls to Congress, and the courts noted this by there ruling, and that ruling was confirmed by The Military Comission Act of 2006 - which gave congressioanl authorization to the plans to be in compliance with the lower court ruling.

All the Supreme Court ruling dealt with, was the immidiate question at hand, which was the challenging of the Military Tribunal process the President setup, did that setup violate any laws / requirements, and did the President overstep his authority by bypassing congress (seperation of powers issue).

Those questions were answered, and those conclcusion were corrected, bringing the setup back into compliance of the law.

Hamdans case, like Hamdis, took place prior to the passage of the Military Comission Act of 2006. Once that act was passed and signed into law, notices was served to Federal Judges they no longer had jurisdiction over those types of cases, as well as notice being served to persons in custody that they no longer were part of the civilian court system.

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia
Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld - Cornell Uniersity Law School archives


On July 7, 2006 the Secretary of Defense issued a memo "Application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to the Treatment of Detainees in the Department of Defense".[35] This may be the basis of a July 11, 2006, statement by the Bush administration that all detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions.[36] This declaration appears not to cover CIA detainees and is ambiguous with respect to the interpretation of Common Article 3 and the definition of "humane treatment".[37]

There were some indications that the other detainees being held at facilities throughout the world (e.g. Bagram Air Base and black sites), might use the Supreme Court's ruling to challenge their treatment. Their reasoning may be that since the Geneva Conventions afforded protection to Hamdan, its other protections might be effective for them as well. Commentators expressed mixed opinions about the strength of this argument.[38]


Again the Military Comission Act of 2006 came after this ruling as well. The effects of the Military Comission Act, again, address the issues that were brought up in this case.

Result of Hamdans lawsuit -

Charges dismissedOn June 5, 2007, Hamdan and Canadian youth Omar Khadr, had all charges against them dismissed.[41][42][43] The judges presiding over their military commissions ruled that the Military Commissions Act did not give them the jurisdiction to try Hamdan and Khadr, because it only authorized the trial of "unlawful enemy combatants". Hamdan and Khadr's Combatant Status Review Tribunals, like those of all the other Guantanamo captives, had confirmed that they were only "enemy combatants".

In December 2007 it was determined that Hamdan was an unlawful enemy combatant. In August of 2008 he was convicted by the military commission of the lesser of two charges and received a sentence of 66 months, reduced by time served to five and a half months.


* Designation of Enemy Combatants - Legal

* Ability to Detain captured personnel without charges if no other evidence is present they were involved in anything but combat operations - Legal (at the conclusion of combat operations, they are repatriated).

* Ability to authorise and allow actions taken by CIa officals in terms of using enhanced interrogation techniques - Legal

* References to the CAT and its definitions are not only trumped by US Federal Law, but by the actions of Taliban / Al Quieda fighters on the BattleField. - Legal based on FEderal Law and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Anytime you want to hold our Government accountible for their actions, let me know and I will be more than happy to assist. The only caveat would be we go after all violaters, and not jsut restrict it to our Government.

The other question I have for you is if you are so concerned about our Government and their actions, then why are you not condemning President Obama? His administration has continued the Policies of President Bush and SecDef Rumsfel, with the only adapatation is the 2009 amendment to the MCA of 2006.

Even the people in the OP who called Rumsfled and Cheney war criminals, why do I not se them at speaking engagements by Obama, Biden or Gates? They are comitting the EXACT same violations as the others.

Again, thi si why these arguments irritate me, because of the surface it looks legitimate, but in the end its nothing but using a abhorrent situation that occured, and still continues to occur to score political points, not to end the practice.


edit on 14-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I appreciate Xchandra's ATTEMPT to rationalize the Bush policies -- but it's really hard to go through ALL the postings. "Read the Articles of X" is not a reply...


You just uindrminded your own argument. You say my answers dont amount to anything because it refers you to actually take some intiative and read, then you say its to hard to go through all of the postings.

Some advice for you - If you dont like long words, legal jargon and interpretation of law and international law and treaties because you find it to hard to go through, then I suggest you not engage in a converastion / debate that relies on those sources for the argument itself. Whining about the info and links is being lazy. Why dont yuou go throuh the sources I gave and counter my arguments using the info? Or is that too much work also?

This area is not a Black and White issue - and trying to argue it as such is a futile effort.


My replies are valid, and I took the time to answer your questions, and provide the links to sources to the information I used for my counter arguments, something I note you fail to do in your posts.

I have even asked for links to some of your claims to support, and instead of getting that, I get posts like this that do nothing but complain about my responses.

Absent you going back and reading the sources and actually taking the time to understand what is going on, there is nothing more I can do for you. Your continued tactic to ignore response and ask repeating questions phrased in a different manner is an attempt to avoid the conversation as a whole.

Its winning an argument not based on fact, but by wearing down the other person by making a circular argument. Eventually they just stop answering your posts, at which point the claim is made well since he didnt answer, he must be wrong.

That tactic is old, and is used way to much in these forums.

I answered your questions.

I provided my sources

I cited those sources in my responses.

You still have failed to answer any of my questions, or provide links for your sources.

Please do so.

Thanks
edit on 14-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Yes it applies. As I have said many many times now. The source of the disagreement comes in when you insist the Conventions are being violated while ignoring the legal basis that they are Federal Law, and as such can be amended, changed etc.
While provisions of treaties are incorporated into federal law, by amending or changing the federal law, you are not changing the treaty, its meaning or conditions. Otherwise treaties would be meaningless, as individual states could then unilaterally redefine treaties by changing or amending their domestic laws. This is not tenable.


More in depth Answer
Jus Cogens
Jus cogens is of no, or little, relevance here. In fact, if anything, it helps the argument that torture was not allowed under any conditions.

A peremptory norm (also called jus cogens) is a fundamental principle of international law which is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is ever permitted. There is no clear agreement regarding precisely which norms are jus cogens nor how a norm reaches that status, but it is generally accepted that jus cogens includes the prohibition of genocide, maritime piracy, slaving in general (to include slavery as well as the slave trade), torture, and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement.



You contend that the moment a country signs an international multi lateral agreement, that treaty is in effect until such time as a country officaly withdraws from it. By extension, and by your argument, you face 2 problems.
And under your rationale, if governments declared other governments illegitimate then they could attack those respective countries without being bound by any laws or treaties because that country’s government was illegitimate.


If the Taliban are bound by it, then they violated all 4 Geneva conventions, all protocols, CAT, IHL, ROW in addition to just about every other international agreement there is.
Yes, they have. I never contested otherwise, nor would any thinking person.


Because of those actions, they are in materially breach of those treaties, invalidating their participation in them.
This is what you quoted from the wiki page on treaties regarding suspension and termination—

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.
Did the Bush administration invoke this argument? It seems to me, from the opinion in Hamdan, the government’s position was that the Conventions didn’t apply because al Qaeda is not a signatory, not that they were in material breach. From the opinion, at p. 75—

The Court of Appeals thought, and the Government asserts, that Common Article 3 does not apply to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda, being “‘international in scope,’” does not qualify as a “‘conflict not of an international character.’” That reasoning is erroneous.
I also noticed you didn’t quote the statement that immediately follows the one you posted—

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. The issue must be presented to an international tribunal or arbiter (usually specified in the treaty itself) to legally establish that a sufficiently serious breach has in fact occurred. Otherwise, a party that prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspends or terminates its own obligations due to an alleged breach itself runs the risk of being held liable for breach.
Do you know of any legal opinions by the competent authorities, in regards to the Conventions, that have ruled them to be inapplicable or void in respects to the conflicts against al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Iraq?

The Supreme Court, at least, seems to be believe that the treaty obligations are not void, since they ruled that at least one of its articles applied. From the opinion (pp. 88-89)—

The Court is correct to concentrate on one provision of the law of war that is applicable to our Nation’s armed conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, as a result, to the use of a military commission to try Hamdan. That provision is Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. It prohibits, as relevant here, “[t]he passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” See, e.g., Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949 The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel.



The courts did not rule the 3rd Geneva Convention applied because Afghanistan was a signatory nation.
Yes they did. From the opinion (pp. 73-74)—

Since Hamdan was captured and detained incident to the conflict with al Qaeda and not the conflict with the Taliban, and since al Qaeda, unlike Afghanistan, is not a “High Contracting Party”—i.e., a signatory of the Conventions, the protections of those Conventions are not, it is argued [by the government], applicable to Hamdan.
How does the Court respond to this—

We need not decide the merits of this argument [that al Qaeda is not a signatory] because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not one between signatories.
The Court identifies the Article and explains why it applies—

Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because, like Article 2, it appears in all four Geneva Conventions, provides that in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions



Their arguments based on the Geneva convention dealt solely with the manner the tribunals were setup, noting they violated the UCMJ as well as the 3rd Geneva Convention (because they were incorperated into the UCMJ).
From the opinion (p. 10)—

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.
Are you arguing that the provision regarding the tribunals — GC Art. 3(d) — apply but that others, in the same Article, do not?

Let’s look at US law — your favorite — to see what the United States understands as violations of the Conventions and Article 3 (18 USC 2441)—

As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; (...)
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; (...)

(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:

(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.



* Designation of Enemy Combatants - Legal
* Ability to Detain captured personnel without charges if no other evidence is present they were involved in anything but combat operations - Legal (at the conclusion of combat operations, they are repatriated).
* Ability to authorise and allow actions taken by CIa officals in terms of using enhanced interrogation techniques - Legal
* References to the CAT and its definitions are not only trumped by US Federal Law, but by the actions of Taliban / Al Quieda fighters on the BattleField. - Legal based on FEderal Law and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Addressing the portion I underlined: Yeah, the President has the ‘ability’ to authorize CIA officials to use “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but that means absolutely nothing in regards to the legality of those techniques.


His administration has continued the Policies of President Bush and SecDef Rumsfel, with the only adapatation is the 2009 amendment to the MCA of 2006.
Agreed.

Even the people in the OP who called Rumsfled and Cheney war criminals, why do I not se them at speaking engagements by Obama, Biden or Gates? They are comitting the EXACT same violations as the others.
Which one is it? Are they legal or are they violations?


To me, depriving a capture enemy combatent of sleep is a whole lot less lethal than Al Queida / Taliban cutting someones head off, who is not even part of any military.
The question is not whether it is “less lethal,” the question is whether it is legal.

Rape is “a whole less lethal” than, for instance, execution. Could President Bush or Obama order al Qaeda detainees to be raped? If your answer is no, why not?


Not at all and I commend you for taking an active intrest in what your and my Government is doing. But you did not answer the question. Why have you not pointed out / gone after / condemned the actions of the Taliban or Al Queida? The other question I have for you is if you are so concerned about our Government and their actions, then why are you not condemning President Obama?
Xcathdra, the fact that I have not, apparently, expressed my opinion frequently enough, in regards to those points, to your satisfaction, is something you are going to have to either accept or get over.

First, I don’t need to condemn or point out anything to be against it. Second, I have condemned both situations you mention. And lastly, and with all due respect, I don’t owe you any satisfactions.

Even if I was in agreement with al Qaeda’s methods, or Obama’s policies — which I’m not — while I would be, perhaps, guilty of hypocrisy, the things that happened under Bush, or are happening under Obama, would still be illegal.

My opinion or my actions, or lack thereof, have absolutely no influence over the legality of the policies we are debating here. I have debated this with you, for a while now, on the understanding that we were doing so based on our individual interpretations of the law, not on a principle of partisanship or support for one group’s or one person’s policies.

I’m not interested otherwise, not only because it’s of no relevance to the legal questions, but I would consider it to be a waste of time. There is enough partisan bickering on ATS as it is.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join