The "Why We're In Iraq" Checklist

[Napoleon]

The Geneva conventions were written for soldiers at war. They apply to enemy combattants. The people who were sent to the camp in cuba were unlawful combattants. They wore no insignia. They were answerable to no responsible officer, and the list goes on. They have no rights under the geneva conventions.

The Geneva Conventions grant even the so called "illegal" combatants basic rights. Article 5 states:

"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

In addition, the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on October 21, 1994. This Convention protects ALL persons regardless of combat status.

 

[palerider]

I don't see the detention camp in Cuba as a violation of this provision. How exactly is it that you do?

 

[Napoleon]

I don't see the detention camp in Cuba as a violation of this provision. How exactly is it that you do?

There have been MANY violations of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There have been many documented instances of inhumane and/or degrading treatment of the detainees despite the fact that even those determined to be "illegal" combatants are granted the right to humane treatment under the Conventions. In addition, persons which have been determined not to be enemy combatants by a military tribunal are still being detained there and denied their rights under the Conventions.

 

[top gun]

There have been MANY violations of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There have been many documented instances of inhumane and/or degrading treatment of the detainees despite the fact that even those determined to be "illegal" combatants are granted the right to humane treatment under the Conventions. In addition, persons which have been determined not to be enemy combatants by a military tribunal are still being detained there and denied their rights under the Conventions.

I just heard tonight on the news that leaks from within the administration are now saying that due to tremendous public pressure it is very likely Guantanamo will be shut down in the near future and the detainees will be transfered to US jails here in the states and stand trial if there is any evidence against them.

I guess better late than never.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I just heard tonight on the news that leaks from within the administration are now saying that due to tremendous public pressure it is very likely Guantanamo will be shut down in the near future and the detainees will be transfered to US jails here in the states and stand trial if there is any evidence against them.

I guess better late than never.

Just like Clinton. Caving in to public pressure to the detriment of American national security.

 

[vyo476]

Just like Clinton. Caving in to public pressure to the detriment of American national security.

Isn't there something...I don't know, contradictory about stating that an elected official "caved" to public pressure? If the President is elected to reflect the will of the people, wasn't Clinton just doing his job?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Isn't there something...I don't know, contradictory about stating that an elected official "caved" to public pressure? If the President is elected to reflect the will of the people, wasn't Clinton just doing his job?

A President is elected to lead the people, not follow the polls. Think about what would have happened throughout history of all Presidents caved to public pressure. Washington/Adams would've been forced to go to war against the French in the late 1790s, ruining the fledgling republic still reeling in debt (some $80 million) from the Revolution. Lincoln would've surrendered to Lee in 1864, and on and on.

A President is elected lead.

 

[drippinhun]

Guantanamo is an illegally occupied territory. The conservative Supreme Court has held that the trials at Guantanemo are illegal and Clinton doesn't enter into this (though some are obsessed with injecting him in every thread dealing with George W.). I wouldn't define implementing illegal actions concerning our nation, leading.

When did our morals slide this far into the toilet? These cavalier actions concern too many other facets of this administration, ignoring Congress's will with signing statements or issuing Presidential directives that usurp the other branches of government's Constitutition authority. Someone or a group of people in the White House feel the the adminstrative branch is a monarchy to do as they please.

This is not a case where rebuking is adaquate. This Adminstration needs to be punished. We can't allow this type of power play in OUR government. I wouldn't expect Bush's sycophants to understand. Their blind allegiance and defense of all things reprehensible to the existance of a democracy is expected. But for those patriots who love our country, we need to become more vocal.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Guantanamo is an illegally occupied territory.

Platt Amendment.

The conservative Supreme Court has held that the trials at Guantanemo are illegal

I hate the whole notion that the Supreme Court is infallible. The Founders actually intended for the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three branches because they are not elected.

I wouldn't define implementing illegal actions concerning our nation, leading.

Mr. Lincoln would disagree.

 

[top gun]

Just like Clinton. Caving in to public pressure to the detriment of American national security.

Maybe Bush is just trying to do better... I don't know?

 

[top gun]

A President is elected to lead the people, not follow the polls. Think about what would have happened throughout history of all Presidents caved to public pressure. Washington/Adams would've been forced to go to war against the French in the late 1790s, ruining the fledgling republic still reeling in debt (some $80 million) from the Revolution. Lincoln would've surrendered to Lee in 1864, and on and on.

A President is elected lead.

That is just ridiculous. To believe that you have to believe EVERY president was always RIGHT! Strong and wrong is worse than listening to the people any day.

Now if you're right (which Bush doesn't appear to be in this present case) then that's another story all together.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

That is just ridiculous. To believe that you have to believe EVERY president was always RIGHT! Strong and wrong is worse than listening to the people any day.

Now if you're right (which Bush doesn't appear to be in this present case) then that's another story all together.

Of course. But I was just using a little historical evidence to support my contention that Presidents should govern by following the polls. Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Truman. All great presidents who resisted strong public pressure for the ultimate benefit of the nation.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Because the title of this thread is "The "Why We're in Iraq" Checklist" and every part of that resolution is relavent as it outlines explicitly the reasons we are in Iraq.



Why we are in Iraq is irrelavent data? I see.



That we are in Iraq for very specific reasons that were outlined and voted on by our representatives. There are many out there who are making up reasons that simply are not true. One can look at the list and see the actual reasons we are in iraq.



What my position is is COMPLETELY irrelavent to the facts of why we are in Iraq. It doesn't matter a whit whether I am for the war or against the war. The resolution outlines exactly why we are there. The subject of this thread demanded an actual check list of why we are there and the resolution is the only factual checklist.

You completely ignore the intent of the OP. You attempt to frame the argument within the limited context of congressional resolutions. Suites your purpose but doesn't really address the issue. You have define the argument to control the conditions of the debate. Effective within the confines of your little world I'm sure. A crude rhetorical device non the less.

 

[palerider]

You completely ignore the intent of the OP. You attempt to frame the argument within the limited context of congressional resolutions. Suites your purpose but doesn't really address the issue. You have define the argument to control the conditions of the debate. Effective within the confines of your little world I'm sure. A crude rhetorical device non the less.

Reasons other than those outlined by congress are fiction. If you,m or anyone else suggests that we are there for a reason not found in the iraq resolution, then you are simply fabricating for purposes known only to you.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Reasons other than those outlined by congress are fiction. If you,m or anyone else suggests that we are there for a reason not found in the iraq resolution, then you are simply fabricating for purposes known only to you.

Thank you for your tireless efforts to make my point for me. Although you really need not have bothered as it was already so obvious. But thanks any way for another demonstration of your trite attempts to control the conditions of the debate.