2
   

Sigh, more lies about abuses

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 04:27 pm
Baldimo -

did Afghanistan have an organized army at all?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 04:54 pm
parados wrote:
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.

No, you take posts that do not say something and simply insist that they do. None of the posts of mine that you quoted state that our interrogation abuses are justified. No post I have ever made here states that our interrogation abuses are justified. On the contrary, I have many posts here that state that our interrogation abuses are not justified, and none that state that they are.

My claim has been specifically this pair of assertions:

1. Some of our soldiers have done things that are morally wrong and they must be punished.
2. It is unfair to point out our abuses and say little or nothing about the abuses by the other side which are generally worse.

There is nothing unclear about this. There is nothing inconsistent about it. Hence, when you say that I justify our abuses, you are simply putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. Now, find a post of mine that says that prison abuses by our soldiers is justified, or take back the assertion.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:15 pm
old europe wrote:
Baldimo -

did Afghanistan have an organized army at all?


They might have thought they did, but they had an unrecognized govt in power. Therefore they didn't have an army. Therefore the GC did not cover them.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:26 pm
Baldimo wrote:
They might have thought they did, but they had an unrecognized govt in power. Therefore they didn't have an army. Therefore the GC did not cover them.


This means: whenever I wouldn't recognize a government in power, this country wouldn't have an organized army. This means: whenever I would invade a country without recognizing its government, I would not be fighting an organized army. This means: whenever I would invade a country without recognizing its government, I would not be bound to the Geneva Convention. This means: whenever I invade a country without recognizing its government, I can legally carpet-bomb its cities, kill its civilians and torture whomever I would capture.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:18 pm
old europe wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
They might have thought they did, but they had an unrecognized govt in power. Therefore they didn't have an army. Therefore the GC did not cover them.


This means: whenever I wouldn't recognize a government in power, this country wouldn't have an organized army. This means: whenever I would invade a country without recognizing its government, I would not be fighting an organized army. This means: whenever I would invade a country without recognizing its government, I would not be bound to the Geneva Convention. This means: whenever I invade a country without recognizing its government, I can legally carpet-bomb its cities, kill its civilians and torture whomever I would capture.


You are wrong. There were only 2 countries that recognized the Taliban govt. The UN didn't see them as the rightful rulers of Afghanistan. I see you missed the part about them not being in uniform.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:34 pm
Sorry, I'm wrong about what?

And where in your answer did you mention somebody not being in uniform? If you want me to take everything you ever said on this topic into account, you should notify people about that.

And, btw: I'm not really critizising the action taken in Afghanistan here. You're right about the Taliban not being recognized as a government (funny how people refer to the UN when it suits their argument, though), but I strongly dislike the fact of how quick people are willing to dismiss the Geneva Convention as 'not applicable'.

Especially if you arrive at the conclusion the way you did in your statement, because it would mean that whenever you don't recognize a government, you're free to torture and kill.

But if you were trying to say that I was wrong about that, than I'd be happy to learn how you would reach a different conclusion starting from your initial statement three posts ago!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:36 pm
Baldimo wrote:


You are wrong. There were only 2 countries that recognized the Taliban govt. The UN didn't see them as the rightful rulers of Afghanistan. I see you missed the part about them not being in uniform.


There is no absolute requirement of a uniform in the Geneva Convention.
It is a silly argument to claim that it is there. We invaded Afghanistan. Because we did invade them any person that took up arms to repel the invaders and fight against the US is covered by the Geneva Convention.

Quote:
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

....
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Anyone captured fighting against the US is technically covered under item 6 unless you have evidence they violated the rules of war. The Geneva convention does NOT require uniforms as you keep claiming.


Recognizing the govt in Afghanistan makes no difference based on item 3 of Art 4.

Quote:
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

It makes no difference whether the US recognized a govt or not to classify any captured soldiers as POWs. The Geneva Convention specifically states that members of armed forces not recognized are still classified as POWs.

Your arguments are completely WRONG Baldimo based on the Geneva Convention itself.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:37 pm
old europe wrote:
Sorry, I'm wrong about what?

And where in your answer did you mention somebody not being in uniform? If you want me to take everything you ever said on this topic into account, you should notify people about that.

And, btw: I'm not really critizising the action taken in Afghanistan here. You're right about the Taliban not being recognized as a government (funny how people refer to the UN when it suits their argument, though), but I strongly dislike the fact of how quick people are willing to dismiss the Geneva Convention as 'not applicable'.

Especially if you arrive at the conclusion the way you did in your statement, because it would mean that whenever you don't recognize a government, you're free to torture and kill.

But if you were trying to say that I was wrong about that, than I'd be happy to learn how you would reach a different conclusion starting from your initial statement three posts ago!


My first post on this thread:
Quote:
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.


I stated they didn't have uniforms on.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:07 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, you take posts that do not say something and simply insist that they do. None of the posts of mine that you quoted state that our interrogation abuses are justified. No post I have ever made here states that our interrogation abuses are justified. On the contrary, I have many posts here that state that our interrogation abuses are not justified, and none that state that they are.

My claim has been specifically this pair of assertions:

1. Some of our soldiers have done things that are morally wrong and they must be punished.
2. It is unfair to point out our abuses and say little or nothing about the abuses by the other side which are generally worse.

There is nothing unclear about this. There is nothing inconsistent about it. Hence, when you say that I justify our abuses, you are simply putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. Now, find a post of mine that says that prison abuses by our soldiers is justified, or take back the assertion.

OMG Brandon.. You are SO predictable... I made an assertion in this thread too? Is this your ONLY argument EVER Brandon? To accuse someone of something and then demand they show you in your own words even after I have shown 3 instances of you doing what you now claim you didn't do?

A COMPARISON of one to the other is WHAT if not an attempt at justification by saying one is NOT as bad as the other. Why did you even bring up a comparison? hmmm? Explain your use of comparisons. Explain your seemingly requirement to only discuss this WITH a comparison. You can't compare and call one thing worse than another without being also calling one BETTER than the other.

I tell you what Brandon when you agree to discuss the abuses by US soldiers without bringing any other abuses by anyone else into the conversation then you can claim that you aren't trying to justify them. Until then, logic leaves me with only one choice. You are attempting to show them to be better than they are, hence you are justifying them.

Lets use YOUR words in this one Brandon...
"
My point is that if one party lays his argument out clearly, and someone trying to argue an opposing view responds only with irrelevant jibes or insults, it would be the universal verdict that, at least formally, the former party's views have prevailed. "

Sorry Brandon but your irrelevent jibe that I "accused" you of something is nothing but an attempt to avoid discussing the issue. It is the tactic you ALWAYS resort to when you can't discuss an issue it seems. Call the other person a liar and demand they back up what they said with your posts. It is very silly really for an adult to do that. You have now used this tactic on me at least 4 times. And every time I turn it around on you. Childish on your part really. One would expect you to grow up at some point considering your age.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:13 pm
Baldimo wrote:

My first post on this thread:
Quote:
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.


I stated they didn't have uniforms on.


And it completely ignores the RELEVENT parts of the Geneva Convention. Uniforms are NOT a requirement Baldimo to be considered for POW status Baldimo. Uniforms are not even mentioned in the Geneva Convention.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 08:43 pm
parados wrote:
Baldimo wrote:

My first post on this thread:
Quote:
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.


I stated they didn't have uniforms on.


And it completely ignores the RELEVENT parts of the Geneva Convention. Uniforms are NOT a requirement Baldimo to be considered for POW status Baldimo. Uniforms are not even mentioned in the Geneva Convention.


From third GC:

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:13 pm
Baldimo wrote:
parados wrote:
Baldimo wrote:

My first post on this thread:
Quote:
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.


I stated they didn't have uniforms on.


And it completely ignores the RELEVENT parts of the Geneva Convention. Uniforms are NOT a requirement Baldimo to be considered for POW status Baldimo. Uniforms are not even mentioned in the Geneva Convention.


From third GC:

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


Are you incapable of reading Baldimo?
Let me post the ENTIRE article 4.1 not just 4.1.2. Can you count to 6? Do you understand what only ONE of the 6 means? If they fit in ANY ONE of the 6 categories then they are classified under Geneva.

Quote:
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:23 pm
parados wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
parados wrote:
Baldimo wrote:

My first post on this thread:
Quote:
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.


I stated they didn't have uniforms on.


And it completely ignores the RELEVENT parts of the Geneva Convention. Uniforms are NOT a requirement Baldimo to be considered for POW status Baldimo. Uniforms are not even mentioned in the Geneva Convention.


From third GC:

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


Are you incapable of reading Baldimo?
Let me post the ENTIRE article 4.1 not just 4.1.2. Can you count to 6? Do you understand what only ONE of the 6 means? If they fit in ANY ONE of the 6 categories then they are classified under Geneva.

Quote:
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Are you saying terrorists abide by the rules of war?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:27 pm
Quote:
Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


And it has NOTHING to do with uniforms.

So how do you show without doubt that everyone with a gun in Afghanistan was a terrorist? I can't wait to hear this one..


0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:32 pm
parados wrote:
Quote:
Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


And it has NOTHING to do with uniforms.

So how do you show without doubt that everyone with a gun in Afghanistan was a terrorist? I can't wait to hear this one..




That was determined by people on the ground and a long process before they arrived in Gitmo.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:40 pm
Sheesh.

It's a moral thing. Who cares about the wording of the treaty?

There is a right way and a wrong way to treat people. Just because your enemy treats people the wrong way, doesn't give you a right to treat people the wrong way, even them.

The people who determined that we could treat people the wrong way, and that's okay, have no morals any longer. This does not absolve anyone's actions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 11:27 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sheesh.

It's a moral thing. Who cares about the wording of the treaty?

There is a right way and a wrong way to treat people. Just because your enemy treats people the wrong way, doesn't give you a right to treat people the wrong way, even them.

The people who determined that we could treat people the wrong way, and that's okay, have no morals any longer. This does not absolve anyone's actions.

Cycloptichorn


There was a thread in the legal forum that talked about a little girl who was hit with water balloons and returned fire a rock. Most people in the thread didn't see anything wrong with the action. In effect she was treating someone worse then she was being treated and was applauded.

I see a direct action and reaction in such cases no matter who is involved. People have had horrible things happen to them while taken captive by terrorists and most haven't lived to tale.

You talk about morals but we are dealing with people who have no morals. If we were to treat them better then they treat us, then there is no fear in the enemy to treat our people better. They don't fear death as can be seen in the last couple of years. We need to use something that will scare them. It is the only way to deal with people such as this.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:20 am
So, the way to deal with people without morals is to have no morals yourself?

I don't accept that answer. It is tantamount to joining the side of the enemies.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:22 am
parados wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, you take posts that do not say something and simply insist that they do. None of the posts of mine that you quoted state that our interrogation abuses are justified. No post I have ever made here states that our interrogation abuses are justified. On the contrary, I have many posts here that state that our interrogation abuses are not justified, and none that state that they are.

My claim has been specifically this pair of assertions:

1. Some of our soldiers have done things that are morally wrong and they must be punished.
2. It is unfair to point out our abuses and say little or nothing about the abuses by the other side which are generally worse.

There is nothing unclear about this. There is nothing inconsistent about it. Hence, when you say that I justify our abuses, you are simply putting words in my mouth which I never uttered. Now, find a post of mine that says that prison abuses by our soldiers is justified, or take back the assertion.

OMG Brandon.. You are SO predictable... I made an assertion in this thread too? Is this your ONLY argument EVER Brandon? To accuse someone of something and then demand they show you in your own words even after I have shown 3 instances of you doing what you now claim you didn't do?

A COMPARISON of one to the other is WHAT if not an attempt at justification by saying one is NOT as bad as the other. Why did you even bring up a comparison? hmmm? Explain your use of comparisons. Explain your seemingly requirement to only discuss this WITH a comparison. You can't compare and call one thing worse than another without being also calling one BETTER than the other.

I tell you what Brandon when you agree to discuss the abuses by US soldiers without bringing any other abuses by anyone else into the conversation then you can claim that you aren't trying to justify them. Until then, logic leaves me with only one choice. You are attempting to show them to be better than they are, hence you are justifying them.

Lets use YOUR words in this one Brandon...
"
My point is that if one party lays his argument out clearly, and someone trying to argue an opposing view responds only with irrelevant jibes or insults, it would be the universal verdict that, at least formally, the former party's views have prevailed. "

Sorry Brandon but your irrelevent jibe that I "accused" you of something is nothing but an attempt to avoid discussing the issue. It is the tactic you ALWAYS resort to when you can't discuss an issue it seems. Call the other person a liar and demand they back up what they said with your posts. It is very silly really for an adult to do that. You have now used this tactic on me at least 4 times. And every time I turn it around on you. Childish on your part really. One would expect you to grow up at some point considering your age.

I have said:

1. Some of our soldiers have done things that are morally wrong and they must be punished.
2. It is unfair to point out our abuses and say little or nothing about the abuses by the other side which are generally worse.

In essence you are claiming that it is impossible for me to honestly wish to assert both #1 and #2 simultaneously. That is logically false. It is possible to maintain #1 and #2 simultaneously, as I do.

You claim that by asserting both at once, I am attempting to justify the things that our side does wrong. You cannot produce one single post with me saying that our side's abuses are justified, but I have many posts saying that they are not.

You are now in the position of asserting that I believe something that (a) you can present not one single post with me saying, and (b) I am saying clearly that I do not, in fact, believe.

I repeat, show me one single post with me saying that our side's prisoner abuse is justified or retract the accusation.

Some liberals seem to have this new despicable technique. You claim someone believes something that (a) he insists he doesn't believe (b)without being able to present a single post in evidence. Your argument consists primarily of obfuscation and misdirection. This makes you a liar. I urge all honest liberals to repudiate this unethical practice.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:30 am
Brandon
Quote:
2. It is unfair to point out our abuses and say little or nothing about the abuses by the other side which are generally worse.


Incorrect. The actions of the enemy are immaterial and unneccessary in a discussion about our own actions. This is a logical error on your part.

Cycloptichorn
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 0.03 seconds on 08/16/2022 at 11:12:56