Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,138 posts

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

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

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,138 posts

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

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

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

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.

#37 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,829 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:12 PM

Because the day we start ignoring basic human rights we become them....then we can no longer condemn them for autrocities because we are them.

#38 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:23 PM

Because the day we start ignoring basic human rights we become them....then we can no longer condemn them for autrocities because we are them.


Do you REALLY believe this? I know it sounds good in a speech and everything, but torturing some of those animals prevented other attacks. Especially the one who looks like Rosie O'Donnell. Lord knows how many future 9/11s we got out of him.

#39 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,829 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:27 PM

Yeah I knew exactly the one you are referring to.... lol

See the reason it sounds good in a speech because it's the right thing to do. How can you condemn them for beheading hostages when we turn around are torturing them. We can and will win this...I just don't want to come out the other end being better than they are....because we are.

#40 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,749 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:54 PM

Do you REALLY believe this? I know it sounds good in a speech and everything, but torturing some of those animals prevented other attacks. Especially the one who looks like Rosie O'Donnell. Lord knows how many future 9/11s we got out of him.


Or ensured another generation of like minded people.

#41 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,138 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:25 AM

I've heard that we've prevented attacks but that's it. No details, no video of them telling us what it is, no supporting evidence. All I have to go on are the torturers telling me how necessary it is for them to keep their jobs.

It's more of the total package that makes it wrong - you can take someone from a country halfway around the world, make them a non person, and send them whereever you like for people to do whatever they want to them - this does not seem like something that should be a standard policy of the country I live in, no matter what "positives" we get from it. It makes us them, so what's the difference between us then?

Bama, thanks for the explanation - as an example, would the Americans who secretly helped certain Latin American operations in the 1980s be classified as unlawful combatants if they did not wear US uniforms?

Did we provide supplies and training to "unlawful combatants" in Afganistan in the 80's? Is it OK to be unlawful combantants in the eyes of our government if we feel it justified? Would we go to bat for the rights of "unlawful combatants" if they were doing our work for us?

#42 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:59 AM

Did we provide supplies and training to "unlawful combatants" in Afganistan in the 80's? Is it OK to be unlawful combantants in the eyes of our government if we feel it justified? Would we go to bat for the rights of "unlawful combatants" if they were doing our work for us?


If those people get captured, there's a good chance they're going to get tortured, and I'm sure they know that going in.

I'm sure torture has gone un under every American president in which there was conflict. Bush was blatant about it in creating Gitmo. If you capture someone and you think he might know when and where the next attack on your side is coming, and you DON'T do everything you can to get it out of him, then you are too soft for the business you are in.

#43 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,829 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:03 AM

Then you cannot condemn the kidnappings, torturing, and beheadings of Americans

#44 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:09 AM

Then you cannot condemn the kidnappings, torturing, and beheadings of Americans


If the victims are citizens and not soldiers, why can't I? That's the difference between us and them. We train soldiers to kill selectively. They train kids to kill indiscriminately.

#45 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:16 AM

A lot of lines get erased or blurred in war. Is it okay to kill someone you've never met before and has done you no harm? It is in war time.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com