9
   

Jimmy Carter sent on A Hostage Run

 
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 01:21 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
This started with the fatuous suggestion, again, maybe, thru naivete, that Clinton was the biggest lawbreaker of that group of four.


Please show me where I said this. I did not. I know what I wrote and evidently either I failed to write in such a way that you would understand or your comprehension of what I wrote is lacking. I'm not sure which, but feel free to find where I wrote this.

Quote:
Who do you think would have occupied center stage had Hitler been taken alive?

Pardon me, but what in tarnation has this to do with anything?

Quote:
Bush1 was part of the Nicaraguan war crimes. Are you suggesting that both he and Reagan were asked to leave the room when discussions took place?

I'm not suggesting anything. But now that you brought up that point, do you have proof they were not asked to leave the room? Dang, we can play this game all day.

Quote:
Ever heard, "the buck stops here"? The idea behind it is supposedly a core concept for conservatives. You seem to have got short shrift here.


Sure, I've heard that. Not disputing it. All presidents, rightly or wrongly, pay the price for their administrations actions, whether or not they as presidents were responsible. It is why Obama now is taking heat for so much of our problems now. Whether responsible or not, he faces the consequences of his admins decisions and actions. But again, you have chosen to point the finger at BB&R, not at their administrations. I've asked for proof that THEY are war criminals. I think you've already established that you believe the US was guilty of war crimes under Reagan. I'll concede that you believe so if that will make you happy.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 01:51 pm
@maxdancona,
Thank you for a straight forward answer.

Here's a reference for you. There are many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

Quote:
War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1]


Glad to have been of help.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 02:05 pm
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
Please show me where I said this. I did not. I know what I wrote and evidently either I failed to write in such a way that you would understand or your comprehension of what I wrote is lacking. I'm not sure which, but feel free to find where I wrote this.



Quote:
Fact is, I am on firmer ground in this respect than you are base on the legal proceedings against Clinton, but I'm not one to dwell on the past so I'm not planning on getting into any contests with you arguing Clinton's crimes.


You were on firmer propaganda, CR, that much is true.

Quote:
Pardon me, but what in tarnation has this to do with anything?


Exactly what you discussed in your last paragraph.

"All presidents, rightly or wrongly, pay the price for their administrations actions, whether or not they as presidents were responsible."

As I've mentioned, a number of times, which you've ignored, a number of times is that it is well established that not knowing does not relieve one of responsibility when it comes to war crimes.

This is even more the case, when it is the leader of a country's responsibility, as you've acknowledged, to be responsible for what happens during their time in office.

Your suggestion that both Bush and Reagan were out of the loop is completely absurd. You seem to like to play games when it comes to evil deeds of Republican prezes, not so much for Democratic ones.

There was no price paid, by either Reagan or Bush1, for the following war crimes:

1. Decides that in adjudicating the dispute brought before it by the Application filed by the Republic of Nicaragua on 9 April 1984, the Court is required to apply the "multilateral treaty reservation"contained in proviso (c) to the declaration of acceptance of jurisdiction made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court by the Government of the United States of America deposited on 26 August 1946;
Rejects the justification of collective self-defence maintained by the United States of America in connection with the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua the subject of this case;
Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;
Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;
Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;
Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;
Decides that, by the acts referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Nicaragua signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;
Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;
Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas', and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America;
Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has committed acts calculated to deprive of its object and purpose the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;
Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has acted in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;
Decides that the United States of America is under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all such acts as may constitute breaches of the foregoing legal obligations;
Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law enumerated above;
Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States


================

Neither Reagan nor Bush paid any price for the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children who were variously raped, tortured and murdered because of the actions taken by Reagan and Bush.

Tens of thousands, innocent human beings, CoastalRat. What's your next little game, your next diversion?

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 02:15 pm
@roger,
Quote:
War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1]


Yup, the USA has these bases pretty much covered, even in the justifiable wars.


0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 02:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
. I half expect them to stiff him, this after they had made the customary promise that all he had to do was show up to collect the American.


the boys are back in town

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-08/28/c_13466404.htm
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 02:34 pm
@ehBeth,
What's odd in all this is that some folk, a lot of folk?? think that these people deserve to be released just because they are American.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 02:47 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
What's odd in all this is that some folk, a lot of folk?? think that these people deserve to be released just because they are American.
It it were not so pathetic it would be hilarious....a nut job walks into North Korea as a protest of North Korean Humanitarian practices, Jimmy Carter goes to save him and in the process allows himself to be humiliated and apologies on behalf of the US government, and then the UN congratulates Carter on his great work. This less than a year after the first nut job (Park) did the same thing and was sent back. The only good thing is that Park has been in and out of psych hospitals since his return, and reportedly Gomes tried to off himself in Korea, so maybe that will keep the flow of copy cats down. Regardless, the next one needs to rot in Korea to discourage the practice. Maybe the Koreans will do us a favor and put the next one in front of a firing squad. We have had four in one year do this in Korea, plus the ones in Iran, it is time to deal with the situation.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 02:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
It seems that the collective has a policy that is quite humane in regard to those who have mental issues.

Maybe all returning military with mental problems could be encouraged to go for a hike; could save the government a whole ton of money.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 03:00 pm
@JTT,
Quote:

It seems that the collective has a policy that is quite humane in regard to those who have mental issues
that does not explain Clinton going to collect the two chicks, who are living it up with a nice book deal and speaking tours. I am guessing that their example will cancel out Parks, and I'll bet Gomes tries to cash in too. There will be a next, quite possibly and idealistic cute blond. I hope she gets made an example of.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 03:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
that does not explain Clinton going to collect the two chicks, who are living it up with a nice book deal and speaking tours. I am guessing that their example will cancel out Parks, and I'll bet Gomes tries to cash in too. There will be a next, quite possibly and idealistic cute blond. I hope she gets made an example of.


None of this drivel makes ANY sense.

What are you trying to say -- that exploiting the affairs of your life isn't an American way to make money -- that there aren't enough gullible Americans who won't want to read what will likely be a recitation of more American propaganda?

hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:12 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
None of this drivel makes ANY sense.
I am assuming that you are being sarcastic, because the alternative is that you are lacking in basic comprehension abilities.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:17 pm
Quote:
WASHINGTON—The State Department on Friday urged Americans to respect its warning against traveling to North Korea, saying in a cheeky Twitter message that there are not too many former U.S. presidents left available for rescue missions.

In a Tweet posted shortly after former President Jimmy Carter arrived in Boston from North Korea with American Aijalon Gomes who had been detained in the communist country for seven months, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said: "Americans should heed our travel warning and avoid North Korea. We only have a handful of former presidents."His message referred to the fact that Carter was the second former U.S. president to travel to North Korea in the past year to win the release of American citizens imprisoned there. Last August, former President Bill Clinton secured the release of two television reporters who had been arrested for illegally entering North Korea.

Carter's trip means that the only living former presidents not to have rescued Americans imprisoned in North Korea are George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush.

Immediately after Carter flew out of the North Korean capital of Pyongyang with Gomes late Thursday, the State Department renewed its long-standing warning for Americans not to visit the country.

"Travel by U.S. citizens to North Korea is not routine, and U.S. citizens crossing into North Korea without proper documentation, even accidentally, have been subject to arrest and long-term detention," the warning said in bold letters.

Gomes who entered North Korea illegally in January was convicted and sentenced to a hefty fine and eight years of hard labor. The U.S. had appealed for his release on humanitarian grounds for months before Carter's visit.

Crowley said that although the U.S. appreciated the resolution of the Gomes' case, it was still concerned about North Korea's "broader behavior," a reference to its nuclear weapons program and belligerent attitude and actions toward South Korea.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/08/27/us_implores_americans_not_to_visit_nkorea/

Ya, that will work. *sarcasm*
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
I'm guessing it is the comprehension skills. I'm still trying to figure out what in tarnation Hitler has to do with anything we have discussed here.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 06:10 pm
@CoastalRat,
I explained:

Exactly what you discussed in your last paragraph.

"All presidents, rightly or wrongly, pay the price for their administrations actions, whether or not they as presidents were responsible."

As I've mentioned, a number of times, which you've ignored, a number of times is that it is well established that not knowing does not relieve one of responsibility when it comes to war crimes.

This is even more the case, when it is the leader of a country's responsibility, as you've acknowledged, to be responsible for what happens during their time in office.

Let me spell it out for you, CR.

Had Hitler been taken alive, he would have been the main target of the war crimes proceedings, he would have been the main target of a monumental US propaganda campaign about how leaders have to take responsibility not only for their actions but for those actions that are engendered by their action.

Will this suffice or would you now like it put in simpler language?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 04:13 am
@roger,
A war crime is anything the winning side of a conflict said it is to justify hanging the other side leaders.

Side note the US had make it very clear that we will never allow our military men and now women to stand trial in an international court for war crimes.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 08:40 am
@JTT,
You've made numerous suggestions, CoastalRat, that Reagan didn't know. That's fatuous on its face.

Quote:
Professor of International Law, Anthony D'Amato, writing for the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 80, 1986, commented on this case, stating that "...law would collapse if defendants could only be sued when they agreed to be sued, and the proper measurement of that collapse would be not just the drastically diminished number of cases but also the necessary restructuring of a vast system of legal transactions and relations predicated on the availability of courts as a last resort. There would be talk of a return to the law of the jungle." The author also notes that the case resulted in an unusual candor. A month after the announced withdrawal, Secretary of State Shultz suggested, and President Reagan later confirmed in a press conference, that the goal of U.S. policy was to overthrow the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua (see N.Y. Times, Feb. 22, 1985, at A10, cols. 1, 3).




And the duplicity, it's stunning. Something like yours has been in this discussion.

Quote:
Although this was what Nicaragua had alleged to be the U.S. goal, while the case was actively pending, the United States could not concede that goal without serious risk of undermining its litigating position.[5

Ibid



And this is the guy, an admitted war criminal, that America names an airport after, a guy that America talks of putting on Mt Rushmore.

Quote:
Dr. MacMichael's responsibility was centered upon Central America. He had top-secret clearance. He was qualified and authorized to have access to all relevant U.S. intelligence concerning Central America, including intelligence relating to alleged Nicaraguan support for, and arms shipments to the anti-Government insurgents in El Salvador. He took part in high level meetings of the Latin American affairs office of the CIA. Including a fall 1981 meeting, which submitted the initial plan to set up a 1500 man covert force on the Nicaraguan border, shipping arms from Nicaragua to the El Salvador insurgents. This plan was approved by President Reagan.[14][15]

Ibid


[added emphasis is mine]
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 08:53 am
@JTT,
Quote:
You've made numerous suggestions, CoastalRat, that Reagan didn't know. That's fatuous on its face.

I don't believe I've ever stated that he did not know. You'll have to show me where I said that. Truth is, I do not know if he knew or not. Neither do you.

JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 08:59 am
@CoastalRat,
The author also notes that the case resulted in an unusual candor. A month after the announced withdrawal, Secretary of State Shultz suggested, and President Reagan later confirmed in a press conference, that the goal of U.S. policy was to overthrow the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua (see N.Y. Times, Feb. 22, 1985, at A10, cols. 1, 3).

Dr. MacMichael's responsibility was centered upon Central America. He had top-secret clearance. He was qualified and authorized to have access to all relevant U.S. intelligence concerning Central America, including intelligence relating to alleged Nicaraguan support for, and arms shipments to the anti-Government insurgents in El Salvador. He took part in high level meetings of the Latin American affairs office of the CIA. Including a fall 1981 meeting, which submitted the initial plan to set up a 1500 man covert force on the Nicaraguan border, shipping arms from Nicaragua to the El Salvador insurgents. This plan was approved by President Reagan.

And yet, you still seek to provide cover for war criminals.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 09:20 am
@JTT,
Still have doubts, CR?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 10:23 am
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
Truth is, I do not know if he knew or not. Neither do you.


I think that truth is something that you really struggle with, CR. I think that you make real, active attempts to pervert the truth, you blow smoke wherever you can to obscure, you engage in the most inane tangents to deflect from the truth.

Why?

You're certainly not alone in this.

Quote:
13. ... The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. April 12 1984. Senator Barry Goldwater said he was told in a letter from CIA Director William Casey that President Reagan himself had approved the mining in writing. This was confirmed by Secretary Dam on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour: "Well, let me put it this way. All covert action programs are approved by the President or they don't go forward."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 02:16:36