Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Chavez Calls on Summit to Indict George W. Bush for War Crimes


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
49 replies to this topic

#25 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,448
  • Reputation: 1,586
SUPPORTER

Posted 06 April 2009 - 11:28 AM

What war crimes would he be charged with?

#26 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 06 April 2009 - 11:38 AM

What war crimes would he be charged with?


failure to turn left
running a stop sign

#27 CanadianCat

CanadianCat

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 713
  • Reputation: 44
HUDDLER

Posted 06 April 2009 - 12:15 PM

What war crimes would he be charged with?


- authorized the use of torture and abuse in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law and domestic constitutional and statutory law.

- authorized the transfer (“rendition”) of persons held in U.S. custody to foreign countries where torture is known to be practiced.

-authorized the indefinite detention of persons seized in foreign combat zones and in other countries far from any combat zone and denied them the protections of the Geneva Conventions

all in all there are 269 war crimes 'they' are trying to get him for....

try watching news other then cnn or fox. you probably still believe that russia started the war in georgia....

#28 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,926
  • Reputation: 2,615
SUPPORTER

Posted 06 April 2009 - 12:25 PM

Everyone knows that Lincoln started the war in Georgia because he was an aggressive Federalist. Oh, Tara!

#29 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 06 April 2009 - 08:08 PM

Ah, yes, forget the fact that you don't know what you are talking about and predict dire consequences as a result of people not listening to what you don't know what you are talking about.


HAHA! As if you know what you're talking about...You flew Kennedy out there as if he did a damn thing right...Bay of Pigs, Allowed the Berlin wall to go up under his watch, poo his pants with the Cuban Missile crisis and got lucky that they backed down. He wouldn't have done poo if they had followed through.

I'll grant you FDR, but he still started us down the road to socialism, and that fact negates a lot.

#30 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 06 April 2009 - 10:05 PM

- authorized the use of torture and abuse in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law and domestic constitutional and statutory law.

- authorized the transfer (“rendition”) of persons held in U.S. custody to foreign countries where torture is known to be practiced.

-authorized the indefinite detention of persons seized in foreign combat zones and in other countries far from any combat zone and denied them the protections of the Geneva Conventions

all in all there are 269 war crimes 'they' are trying to get him for....

try watching news other then cnn or fox. you probably still believe that russia started the war in georgia....



Russia WAS the invading country.

#31 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,926
  • Reputation: 2,615
SUPPORTER

Posted 06 April 2009 - 11:01 PM

HAHA! As if you know what you're talking about...You flew Kennedy out there as if he did a damn thing right...Bay of Pigs, Allowed the Berlin wall to go up under his watch, poo his pants with the Cuban Missile crisis and got lucky that they backed down. He wouldn't have done poo if they had followed through.

I'll grant you FDR, but he still started us down the road to socialism, and that fact negates a lot.


I didn't say that he did anything right. He started us in Vietnam, which turned out pretty sucky. That was the point Gizmotron.

#32 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:57 AM

I didn't say that he did anything right. He started us in Vietnam, which turned out pretty sucky. That was the point Gizmotron.


(reading teleprompter)

Let me perfectly clear....Obama sucks.

#33 Bama Panther

Bama Panther

    USAF JAG

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 371
  • Reputation: 7
HUDDLER

Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:30 PM

-authorized the indefinite detention of persons seized in foreign combat zones and in other countries far from any combat zone and denied them the protections of the Geneva Conventions


Just to clear things up. The Geneva Convention, in no way, applies to al Qaeda member/terrorists taken captive in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You see, the GC basically spins off into the Law of Armed Conflict. The LOAC determines what sort of protections must be offered under the GC. The key factor in that determination is whether the person captured is a lawful or unlawful combatant. Lawful combatants must be treated in accordance with the GC. Unlawful combatants do not have to be treated in such a manner. There are several factors in making that distinction, but terrorists/al Qaeda members certainly do not fit into the class of lawful combatants.

While it may be fun to yell and scream, "THE DETAINEES AT GITMO DESERVE PROTECTION UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION!," the legal truth of the matter is that, because they were acting as unlawful combatants, they are not entitled to that protection. Human rights protection? Yes. Geneva Convention protections? No.

#34 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,926
  • Reputation: 2,615
SUPPORTER

Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:27 PM

In Afganistan they had machine guns, were formed in units, and battled the US and Northern Alliance militarily. In that capacity, where they also "terrorists"?

#35 Bama Panther

Bama Panther

    USAF JAG

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 371
  • Reputation: 7
HUDDLER

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:00 PM

In Afganistan they had machine guns, were formed in units, and battled the US and Northern Alliance militarily. In that capacity, where they also "terrorists"?


I assumed that this question would come up. Simply forming up in units, using machine guns and fighting someone militarily is not enough to be considered a lawful combatant.

source: http://usmilitary.ab...rs/a/loac_2.htm

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.


Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.


Dealing with the Taliban is probably the grayest issue. If I remember correctly, the Taliban was the governing party of Afghanistan. The question becomes whether their acts, once the war started, were authorized under the LOAC.

al Qaeda members? It's black and white. No protection, regardless of forming up, using machine guns, etc.

#36 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:10 PM

Why do people on the left WANT the Gitmo scumbags to have rights? These aren't people you would sit down and have latte with, you know.