Hello from UShadItComing

[ML2007]

The decision to deny Al Quada and Taliban detainees POW protections was the proper interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. The US position on this regard has been in place since the 1980's.

So, you say, but it is not. What about the Iraqi detainees and the two Americans? What about torture? "The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law," - wikipedia



The point you are making is moot. There has already been a precedent established that says "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." That means all peoples held by enemy governments must come under the Geneva Conventions. Whether or not we have ratified Protocol I, we signed it.



Another moot point. We were not considered at war with Cuba. All of these illustrations come under different laws.



It is a matter of opinion whether or not you think it is ridiculous. Bush cannot circumvent the Geneva Convention or any law including the Constitution just because you and he say so. BTW, there is no such thing as European International law, it is either International law or it is not.



It has already been won in court, that is why Mukasey is asking for a declaration of war.






Yes, use of water is torture whether you call it waterboarding or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_torture



It is immaterial what Clinton did or not do, the subject is Bush and his current illegal activities you seem to want to deny.



As an American citizen, he has the right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Constitution of the US. He has not committed treason until he has been tried and convicted by his peers. Sorry, but same old denial and argument. It sounds like you would hack up our Constitution.



A moot point. He was first denied his rights and held against his will without due process for 18 months. You said it wouldn't happen here in America. It has. It matters not that he eventually was tried and convicted. The point is and was these tyrants are taking away our Constitutional rights. End of story.





That is just your opinion. I think they were doing their job of checks and balances interpreting the Constitution of the US.

 

[UShadItComing]

If you want to call waterboarding toruture, but legally it is not.

Japanese military personnel were put to death for waterboarding Americans prisoners of war.

If it smells like torture it is torture and American who support it destroy their credibility.

 

[UShadItComing]

moderators, administrators- With nearly 50 posts on this thread it's becoming obvious that it is causing a disrupton of this section. I wouldn't like to see all our thoughtful posts deleted but I would like to see it moved to another section so it will not interfere with other introductions by new members.

P.m. me if you like with suggestions.

And regardless, I would like to get to know some of our moderators at this great forum!

 

[Libsmasher]

The time is gone when the US and other civilized states should allow islamofascist killers to break every rule of warfare, yet demand (or rather have their lib lawyers demand) novel protections for themselves. Eg, the US should bring an end to the practice of unidentifed IFs murdering women and children and then just fading back into the civilian population. If this is in accord with the Geneva Conventions, they are unacceptable and need to be modified. Meantime, the US should announce that any IF caught on the battlefield without a pre-announced uniform, or at least clearly visible insignia, will be subject to summary execution.

 

[Libsmasher]

Japanese military personnel were put to death for waterboarding Americans prisoners of war.

Complete fiction.

 

[Bunz]

The time is gone when the US and other civilized states should allow islamofascist killers to break every rule of warfare, yet demand (or rather have their lib lawyers demand) novel protections for themselves. Eg, the US should bring an end to the practice of unidentifed IFs murdering women and children and then just fading back into the civilian population. If this is in accord with the Geneva Conventions, they are unacceptable and need to be modified. Meantime, the US should announce that any IF caught on the battlefield without a pre-announced uniform, or at least clearly visible insignia, will be subject to summary execution.

You dont understand much about dealing with an insurgency as we are in Iraq do you? Taking the route you suggest will assure 100 years of conflict in Iraq. The center of gravity and ultimatly the prize in this war is the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Everything else falls in place after that.
Summarily executing anyone is the worst way to go about this.

 

[Libsmasher]

You dont understand much about dealing with an insurgency as we are in Iraq do you? Taking the route you suggest will assure 100 years of conflict in Iraq. The center of gravity and ultimatly the prize in this war is the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Everything else falls in place after that.
Summarily executing anyone is the worst way to go about this.

What are your arguments? IFs do NOTHING BUT summary executions.

 

[Bunz]

What are your arguments? IFs do NOTHING BUT summary executions.

Sigh...
We are fighting an insurgency. We have won militarily. No question.
Now the purpose of American troops is winning the peace and defeating the insurgency. Lowering ourselves to the methods of the insurgents only works against us in the long run. It is widely known that winning an insurgency generally involves creating the economic and infastructure circumstances that makes the insurgency obsolete that wins. Continuing down the path you suggest only creates new insurgents and solidifies thier support, in community and economic support.

 

[Libsmasher]

Sigh...
We are fighting an insurgency. We have won militarily. No question.
Now the purpose of American troops is winning the peace and defeating the insurgency. Lowering ourselves to the methods of the insurgents only works against us in the long run.

I called for no such "lowering" - I demanded execution of people out of uniform, the long-existing custom in warfare, for which bandits like al qaeda have been given an irrational exemption. If you want to debate, debate what I say, not strawmen.

It is widely known that winning an insurgency generally involves creating the economic and infastructure circumstances that makes the insurgency obsolete that wins. Continuing down the path you suggest only creates new insurgents and solidifies thier support, in community and economic support.

You don't know what you're talking about. Al qaeda has destroyed everything they can get their hands on that is an attempt to improve the lives of the people. They blow up oil pipelines and electric generators in iraq. I just read an article about a UK parachute brigade which is guarding the Helmand river dam in afghanistan (a previous gift from the US). They hand out shoes and cooking oil and flour and school books to the local villages, and the taliban shows up the next day, collects everything, and warns them not to accept anything more if they value their life. The ONLY way the US can win is to destroy the IFs. They can do that if they stop irrationally giving them privileges on the battlefield.

 

[Bunz]

I called for no such "lowering" - I demanded execution of people out of uniform, the long-existing custom in warfare, for which bandits like al qaeda have been given an irrational exemption. If you want to debate, debate what I say, not strawmen.

Execution of insurgents throughout history has been a dramatic failure and does nothing to win the poppulation which is the mark of victory in this case.

You don't know what you're talking about. Al qaeda has destroyed everything they can get their hands on that is an attempt to improve the lives of the people. They blow up oil pipelines and electric generators in iraq. I just read an article about a UK parachute brigade which is guarding the Helmand river dam in afghanistan (a previous gift from the US). They hand out shoes and cooking oil and flour and school books to the local villages, and the taliban shows up the next day, collects everything, and warns them not to accept anything more if they value their life. The ONLY way the US can win is to destroy the IFs. They can do that if they stop irrationally giving them privileges on the battlefield.

What are you talking about? We are talking about Iraq and you go on to mention the Taliban, but it works the same regardless. The absurd tactics of insurgents win the hearts our way in the long run. Responding in kind solidifies thier support against us. The only way the US can win, is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people who themselves will marginalize the fringe. Acting like idiots as we have done in such cases as Abu Graib and Al-Haiditha only solidifies support the opposite way. Its a damn good thing you arent running this war. We would lose handily if that was the case.

 

[BigRob]

The point you are making is moot. There has already been a precedent established that says "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." That means all peoples held by enemy governments must come under the Geneva Conventions. Whether or not we have ratified Protocol I, we signed it.

No, we did not sign Protocol I. And now we are being held up to its bogus standards.

Another moot point. We were not considered at war with Cuba. All of these illustrations come under different laws.

Legal precedence is hardly a moot point.

Bush cannot circumvent the Geneva Convention or any law including the Constitution just because you and he say so. BTW, there is no such thing as European International law, it is either International law or it is not.

He did not circumvent anything, because we never signed Protocol I. I am not sure what you mean with European International Law, I never said there was such a thing, but Europeans do indeed have their own unique view of customary international law, and they are trying to hold us to Protocol I standards.

Yes, use of water is torture whether you call it waterboarding or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_torture

It is not illegal.

It is immaterial what Clinton did or not do, the subject is Bush and his current illegal activities you seem to want to deny.

It is immaterial that Clinton and others gave Bush a clear legal precedence to do exactly what he is doing? If you truly were against what you claim to be you would be against not only Bush but all of the Presidents who have been setting this legal precedence for Bush to follow. I suspect you are simply anti-Bush.

As an American citizen, he has the right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Constitution of the US. He has not committed treason until he has been tried and convicted by his peers. Sorry, but same old denial and argument. It sounds like you would hack up our Constitution.

Being picked up on the battlefield of any enemy fighting against the US is not treason? And he is entitled to a trial by jury? The Constitution is not meant to protect traitors and foreign individuals.

A moot point. He was first denied his rights and held against his will without due process for 18 months. You said it wouldn't happen here in America. It has. It matters not that he eventually was tried and convicted. The point is and was these tyrants are taking away our Constitutional rights. End of story.

Two cases of people who are clearly guilty is your "evidence" to claim that the Constitution is in shambles?

That is just your opinion. I think they were doing their job of checks and balances interpreting the Constitution of the US.

Interpreting rights for foreigners, exactly what the founder fathers had in mind right? I am also not sure where they get off doing that job if they were bothering to follow the actual constitution.

 

[BigRob]

What are you talking about? We are talking about Iraq and you go on to mention the Taliban, but it works the same regardless. The absurd tactics of insurgents win the hearts our way in the long run. Responding in kind solidifies thier support against us. The only way the US can win, is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people who themselves will marginalize the fringe. Acting like idiots as we have done in such cases as Abu Graib and Al-Haiditha only solidifies support the opposite way. Its a damn good thing you arent running this war. We would lose handily if that was the case.

Just to clarify, in regards to Al-Haditha, charges were dropped against all but 1 marine. Of course all of our illustrious politicians who demonized these soldiers before knowing what happened have ignored this.

 

[UShadItComing]

Just to clarify, in regards to Al-Haditha, charges were dropped against all but 1 marine. Of course all of our illustrious politicians who demonized these soldiers before knowing what happened have ignored this.

A fair and impartial court would have nailed the lot of them. That's why your country doesn't subscribe to the World court in the Hague. It's not slanted toward the US enough to start overlooking US war crimes.

 

[BigRob]

A fair and impartial court would have nailed the lot of them. That's why your country doesn't subscribe to the World court in the Hague. It's not slanted toward the US enough to start overlooking US war crimes.

If by fair and impartial you mean one that only renders decisions you agree with.

The evidence was shown, and they were acquitted.

 

[UShadItComing]

That's what the Nazis would have said Rob, and then they got to suffer the other extreme which is victor's justice. Your country is just starting to get it's deserved comeuppance now but it's not going to be in the courts.