2
   

Sigh, more lies about abuses

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 07:31 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.


Why? Explain...
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 08:37 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
Well, not exactly on the battlefield, as the Commander in Chief has pointed out. Otherwise they would be prisoners of war, and the Geneva Convention would apply, right? But, of course, the US have not declared war on Iraq or on Afghanistan, so there can't be any POWs, I have to admit - just 'enemy combatants'....

It is ironic that in the directive were Bush outlined this (ie that the Geneva Convention wouldn't be applied), this paragraph is to be found:

Quote:
The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.


Brandon, you are always pointing out the 'sawing off your head' as something utterly cruel (which it is). At the same time you virtually ignore that hanging somebody from the ceiling of a cell, breaking his legs and leaving him there to die is at least as cruel.

I don't fail to notice and accuse the first. But don't expect me to fail to notice the latter, too.

And let me add this: characterizing oneself as a shining city upon the hill while issuing memos that allow 'Category III techniques' (which would cover most of what we have seen out of Abu Ghraib, for example) is perceived as hypocrisy at best.

This is the image today's US of A have in the world, and flowery speeches about how the responsible persons will be put to trial won't help much, when it is in fact the Secretary of Defense or the President who call for suchlike action in the first place.

(addendum: in the meantime, Rumsfeld's directive to use 'Category III techniques' has been revoked, which leaves just Category I and Category II for interrogations. Technically.)

As far as I know, prisoners captured in a war have never been allowed to go to court as if they were accused of civil crimes.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.


They are allowed now thanks once again to an activist Supreme Court. The ruling in July of 04 ended that as the Court over stepped its authority. The decision on illegal combatants has always been the realm of the Executive Branch not the Judicial Branch.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 09:05 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
As far as I know, prisoners captured in a war have never been allowed to go to court as if they were accused of civil crimes.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.


You justify the crime by saying someone else did a worse one. Hardly a high standard Brandon. And not a standard someone should hold if they want to point fingers at others.

Who we are fighting should have no bearing in our standards of decency. Otherwise you can justify almost any act.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 09:18 pm
parados wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
As far as I know, prisoners captured in a war have never been allowed to go to court as if they were accused of civil crimes.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.


You justify the crime by saying someone else did a worse one. Hardly a high standard Brandon. And not a standard someone should hold if they want to point fingers at others.

Who we are fighting should have no bearing in our standards of decency. Otherwise you can justify almost any act.


Those that don't abide by the Geneva Conventions should not be treated by the Geneva Conventions.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 09:32 pm
Quote:
Those that don't abide by the Geneva Conventions should not be treated by the Geneva Conventions.


I see. So the US is no longer subject to the Geneva Convention because we didn't abide by it.

Our soldiers thank you Baldimo for your wonderful support of them.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 07:11 am
Not only that, parados, but his simple statement is false. In the geneva convention it states that parties must be abide by the convention even if the other side did not sign on. (words to that effect)

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Quote:
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 09:19 am
parados wrote:
Quote:
Those that don't abide by the Geneva Conventions should not be treated by the Geneva Conventions.


I see. So the US is no longer subject to the Geneva Convention because we didn't abide by it.

Our soldiers thank you Baldimo for your wonderful support of them.


That's a gross misinterpratation.

If you have some sort of precedent to back you up, you should share it with the Move on.com or ACLU lawyers. They've been dying to be able to make a successful case against the Bush administration and have thus far failed spectacularly.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 09:30 am
Gross misinterpretation by whom, McG?

Baldimo said that those that don't abide by the Geneva Conventions should not be treated by the Geneva Conventions.

US soldiers don't abide by the Geneva Convention. They've been ordered to do so by the Secretary of Defense. They've ordered to do so by the President.

So what are you critisizing? The fact that US soldiers don't abide by the Geneva Convention? The fact that they've been ordered to do so? Or Baldimo's statement that US soldiers, as a consequence, shouldn't be treated be the Geneva Convention in return?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 09:35 am
Where have US soldiers not abided by the Geneva Conventions that hasn't been investigated and those found guilty not punished?

Please support your false accusations.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 09:45 am
McG, I'm not really talking about individual soldiers. I'm talking about the United States and the United States Armed Forces.

I'm pretty sure you've read the Defense Department Memo on Afghanistan Detainees. It's explicitely stated that the Geneva Convention should or could not be applied.

In other words: US soldiers have been ordered by the US Secretary of Defense to ignore the Geneva Convention.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 09:49 am
You are mistaken if you believe the US military has ignored the Geneva Conventions.

It has been very clearly spelled out both here and in the press. Please investigate this matter more thouroughly as I feel you can learn from this.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 09:54 am
You didn't read this, did you:

Bush's Directive on Treatment of Detainees
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 10:26 am
That clearly outlines the fact that al Qeada operates outside the Geneva conventions and are therefore not protected by them. It says nothing about US forces not abiding by them.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 10:47 am
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Quote:
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 11:14 am
McG,
We didn't invade Al Qaeda. We invaded Afghanistan.
Everyone picked up fighting in Afghanistan is legally covered by the Geneva convention until they are found to not qualify. The Geneva convention states as much.

Why on earth did Powell and other ex military protest so furiously about the WH order? Those damn lefties...
Quote:

To declare that the Geneva Convention does not apply, Powell contended, "will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions, and undermine the protection of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general." Powell also listed other negative consequences, such as undermining support among allies, and that it could even provoke investigations and prosecutions of U.S. troops by foreign prosecutors.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 06:53 pm
Well, I guess me and the government of the United States of America will just have to dosagree with you on this topic.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 08:10 pm
So are you claiming that the US is or is not abiding by the Geneva Convention? I can't seem to figure out which side you are arguing.

If the US is NOT abiding by the Geneva Convention then why should anyone that takes a US soldier as prisoner of war abide by it?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 11:08 pm
parados wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
As far as I know, prisoners captured in a war have never been allowed to go to court as if they were accused of civil crimes.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.


You justify the crime by saying someone else did a worse one. Hardly a high standard Brandon. And not a standard someone should hold if they want to point fingers at others.

Who we are fighting should have no bearing in our standards of decency. Otherwise you can justify almost any act.

Learn to read. You appear to utterly ignore what people say in their posts and just sort of make up opinions for them that you can then criticize. From above:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law...No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.


Then you said:

parados wrote:
You justify the crime by saying someone else did a worse one.

Actually, I did just the opposite. I explicitly stated that those responsible ought to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I simply said that while "old europe" was pointing out my country's sins, he might note the far worse sins of the other side. You have now reached the point where you don't care in the slightest what people's posts say, and simply assign to them whatever opinion you wish. So, I suppose I can now tell you that you are very wrong to advocate poisoning the babies of the poor. You never said it, but whoopeee, who cares?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 08:28 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Learn to read. You appear to utterly ignore what people say in their posts and just sort of make up opinions for them that you can then criticize.


Lets all pretend along with Brandon900 that the quoted post is the only post he has made on this thread. I saw no reason to quote all of them Brandon but your standards seem to be pretty well set by statements such as.. From above:

Brandon9000 wrote:
My only point is that there needs to be some perspective. It is absurd to concentrate only on this sin of ours and yet seem to be uninterested in the fact that our opponents are deliberately murdering children.


Quote:
It's not irrelevant. My point was that discussing this kind of thing but not that kind of thing is perverse. I refuse to comply with your idea that discussing the discussion is off topic.


Quote:
I note from your post, your overwhelming concern for the child murdering and neck sawing that our opponents are guilty of.


The fact that you have REFUSED to talk about abuse without bringing up those others is the point Brandon. But I am well aware of your tactics and love using your own tactics against you. SO..

"You have a tendency to zero in on one rather irrelevant portion of a post that you think contains an exploitable flaw, when you find yourself unable to address the general meaning that the poster was conveying."

By the way Brandon since we are looking at items in CONTEXT... OEurope compared sawing heads off to hanging someone in a cell, breaking his legs and leaving him there to die. Your response was that they do things that are a thousand times worse. Are you willing to stand by your statement that killing someone by sawing their head off is a thousand times worse than breaking their legs and letting them die? Personally I don't see much of a difference between the two.

No Brandon, I don't make up your opinions. I use your words in context of a conversation. You are the one that likes to take things out of context and try to use them to your advantage. Your consistent opinion has been "we do bad things but they do much worse." You are attempting to JUSTIFY our actions. There is no other rationale for your statement. I called you on it.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 04:17 pm
Those captured in Afghanistan do not fall under the Geneva Conventions. They were not part of an organized army had no uniforms on and were captured fighting against US and Coalition forces.

Those are the main criteria for being considered protection under the GC.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/03/2022 at 05:31:06