1
   

Geneva Rules?... Hmm, nah

 
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 08:24 pm
candidone1 wrote:
Part of "supporting the soldiers", entails knowing what the soldiers are doing.
If they were raping children, we have the right to know.
If they are defacating on an accused prisoner, we have the right to know.
If they are contravening an international agreement, we have the right to know.

I do not want to support a soldier or group of soldiers who defy international law or demonstrate an inability to act in a manner consistent with the ideologies espoused by the countries they represent.


"International Law"

What a joke. Who's going to enforce that so-called law, Belguim?

If you don't have the wherewithall to enforce a law, you effectively ain't got a law.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 08:31 pm
Ah yes, the evolved 'might makes right' argument.

That's certainly how we want other nations to act, right? Right.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 10:23 pm
SierraSong wrote:
"International Law"

What a joke.


Sh!t on treaties, coventions and agreements: we are the law!
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 10:25 pm
SierraSong wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
Part of "supporting the soldiers", entails knowing what the soldiers are doing.
If they were raping children, we have the right to know.
If they are defacating on an accused prisoner, we have the right to know.
If they are contravening an international agreement, we have the right to know.

I do not want to support a soldier or group of soldiers who defy international law or demonstrate an inability to act in a manner consistent with the ideologies espoused by the countries they represent.


"International Law"

What a joke. Who's going to enforce that so-called law, Belguim?

If you don't have the wherewithall to enforce a law, you effectively ain't got a law.


That's right.
What a joke....and the United States, the only nation in a position to take the moal high road on so many occasions, spits in the face of international conventions recognized by so many others.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 10:30 pm
What has the Canadian government charged Mohamed Harkat (who has been in custody there for years) with? Hmmm?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 10:44 pm
SierraSong wrote:
What has the Canadian government charged Mohamed Harkat (who has been in custody there for years) with? Hmmm?


I stand firmly against any imprisoned unjustly or without criminal charges laid against them.
Mohammed has been imprisoned without criminal charges.
How is that germane to the debate surrounding the United States contravening the Geneva Conventions?
"I know we do it, but so do they...." is sooooo last year.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 10:46 pm
I think, this has more to do with the Canadian constitution - the Supreme Court of Canada is set to rule on whether the use of security certificates is constitutionally valid - then with the Geneva Conventions or any other International Law.

Where do you think, it against what Geneva Convention .... and why?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 10:26 am
Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:04 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn


Can you post something a little more convincing then "unnamed sources" says...

Perhaps a copy of the government order saying they are planning to abandon the Geneva convention guidlines, or perhaps a memo from Cheney detailing the same?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:09 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn


Can you post something a little more convincing then "unnamed sources" says...

Perhaps a copy of the government order saying they are planning to abandon the Geneva convention guidlines, or perhaps a memo from Cheney detailing the same?


Do you have the decency to even admit that if it is true, it wouldn't be a good thing?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:09 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn


Can you post something a little more convincing then "unnamed sources" says...

Perhaps a copy of the government order saying they are planning to abandon the Geneva convention guidlines, or perhaps a memo from Cheney detailing the same?


This is at least the second time you've posted drivel of this type. Would you care to respond the Duck's post?

FreeDuck wrote:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1974188

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged on Wednesday a debate within the U.S. government on whether an Army manual now under revision should permit different interrogation methods for "enemy combatants" than for traditional prisoners of war.

The Pentagon set out to revise the Army Field Manual, which sets standards for interrogations of prisoners, in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, but its completion has been delayed repeatedly.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:09 am
Here's an idea for ya: RTFA before you spout off crap like your above post.

Quote:
The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees.


Those are not 'anonymous sources,' they are Cheney's chief of staff and the Undersecretary for Intelligence, directly quoted.

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:12 am
Snood -- I don't mean to assign homework for you; but since you're a soldier on active duty, would you mind looking up what the current field manual actually says? It would be nice see the actual text that some in the Pentagon wish to change.

Asherman wrote:
Detainees at Guantanano Bay are more akin to pirates than soldiers. It would be more applicable to apply international law related to handling captured pirates to them rather than the usages of war.

Yes -- as soon as "a competent tribunal" has determined that they're not just bystanders who got caught in the wrong time at the wrong place. This seems to have happened to quite a few of the detainees. That said, what international law would apply to captured pirates, and what can the captors rightfully do with them under those laws?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:21 am
snood wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn


Can you post something a little more convincing then "unnamed sources" says...

Perhaps a copy of the government order saying they are planning to abandon the Geneva convention guidlines, or perhaps a memo from Cheney detailing the same?


Do you have the decency to even admit that if it is true, it wouldn't be a good thing?


If it's true, I will comment on it when the facts are known instead of postulating about something being discussed by a committee of politicians.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:34 am
Thomas wrote:
Snood -- I don't mean to assign homework for you; but since you're a soldier on active duty, would you mind looking up what the current field manual actually says? It would be nice see the actual text that some in the Pentagon wish to change.


Though it seems that the FM 3-24 is classified now ...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:43 am
Setanta wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn


Can you post something a little more convincing then "unnamed sources" says...

Perhaps a copy of the government order saying they are planning to abandon the Geneva convention guidlines, or perhaps a memo from Cheney detailing the same?


This is at least the second time you've posted drivel of this type. Would you care to respond the Duck's post?

FreeDuck wrote:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1974188

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged on Wednesday a debate within the U.S. government on whether an Army manual now under revision should permit different interrogation methods for "enemy combatants" than for traditional prisoners of war.

The Pentagon set out to revise the Army Field Manual, which sets standards for interrogations of prisoners, in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, but its completion has been delayed repeatedly.


What's to respond to. That article defends my position very well. Perhaps you should be asking Cyc to respond to Ducks article instead?

Quote:
Congress last year passed a law championed by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain to prohibit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners and to create uniform standards for treating them.

The law called for interrogators to abide by standards enshrined in the Army Field Manual.

...

"It clearly is designed to comply with the law, let there be no doubt about that," Rumsfeld said.



So what's the problem Set? Where does it say there that The US is "preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners? "

Can you see where it says that in Duck's article?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:47 am
So, you aren't going to admit that you didn't RTFA, McG? You asked for a memo from Cheney, not an 'anonymous source,' yet Cheney's chief of staff and close associate are directly quoted in the article; this is akin to what you were asking.

Care to actually, I don't know, admit that you already had the information that you were asking for?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:56 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Here's an idea for ya: RTFA before you spout off crap like your above post.

Quote:
The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees.


Those are not 'anonymous sources,' they are Cheney's chief of staff and the Undersecretary for Intelligence, directly quoted.

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn


Quote:
The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.


That NO decision has been made yet, no new manual produced and the fact the some members of the administration are OPPOSED to this idea doesn't matter right? Just that some one says it has been done is good enough for you cyc? Is that the standard you bear?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 11:56 am
Quote:
"There is a debate over the difference between a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention and an unlawful combatant in a situation that is different from the situation envisioned by the Geneva Convention. And those issues are being wrestled with at the present time," Rumsfeld said.


Quote:
Congress last year passed a law championed by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain to prohibit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners and to create uniform standards for treating them.


The law requires uniform standards for prisoner treatment. They are debating whether or not the Army Field Manual should explicitly define uniform standards for prisoner treatment. It's not clear to me why the debate is needed since, whether or not the Geneva Convention protects the prisoners, US law clearly does.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 12:10 pm
Quote:
Just that some one says it has been done is good enough for you cyc? Is that the standard you bear?


The article stated, from the beginning, that the armed forces were considering doing this. The article went on to state that Cheney's office opposed re-instating the Geneva convention rules in the manual. When did I state that this has already been done, or decided upon?

You stated that you wanted some non-anonymous sources, a memo from Cheney, stating that they wished this to happen, and I showed you people who work for Cheney stating that this is what they wish to happen, not anonymous sources. FD's article confirmed that the DoD is considering whether or not to make these changes. What is the confusion here?

My position has been that this would be another terrible thing for us to do, both from a moral and a PR standpoint, not that it has already been done or been decided. Your point is...?

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 0.09 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 08:40:05