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This topic has been archived.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

#31 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,407
  • Reputation: 2,343
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: 365
  • Reputation: 4
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: 24,407
  • Reputation: 2,343
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: 365
  • Reputation: 4
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.

#37 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,864
  • Reputation: 5,773
Moderators

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

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

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,864
  • Reputation: 5,773
Moderators

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,783
  • Reputation: 535
HUDDLER

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.