Not to derail this ridiculously titled thread too much but where is your bleeding heart for the atrocities suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime. You're willing to bash and dig for anyting to discredit the US but not wiling to liberate a truely oppressed people in Iraq? Doesn't fit your apparently anti-US agenda I guess? I love this double standard you guys have. At least I'm consistant in my morals. Any anti-war people jumping on the bandwagon here are simply pathetic.
Try to find anything about "illegal combetants" prior to afghan war. It was made up for that occation.
Try to look at this military link that supposely talk about illegal combetants btu in reality talk about why they aren´t real combetants guarded under the rules of PoW. There is no definition on illegal combetants which is very convinient because then everybody else you define as not under the geneve convention or under normal civil law can be declared "illegal combetants", "ice cream" or "muahahaha" with those right you give those categories (whatever you make up).
Some of them are. And some are British and Australian citizens.
The Gtmo prisoners have been improperly handled. The Taliban were the gov't of Afghanistan. It's not up for others to decide - do we really want other countries to get into an argument about whether the Geneva Convention applies to the US because of the the questionable nature of Bush's election?
And it's clear that if they're not regular combatants, they are entitled to a hearing to determine that. And then, this whole "well they're not technically in the US" is just too cute. Doesn't this notion of a never-ending war on terrorism and therefore a never-ending suspension of habeas corpus seem wrong to conservatives?
When people in this thread like alcimedes and SDW and dviant start to make the argument that "we're not as bad as them," that ticks me off. If the Taliban is our standard of comparison, we're in deep, deep trouble.
Not to derail this ridiculously titled thread too much but where is your bleeding heart for the atrocities suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime. You're willing to bash and dig for anyting to discredit the US but not wiling to liberate a truely oppressed people in Iraq? Doesn't fit your apparently anti-US agenda I guess? I love this double standard you guys have. At least I'm consistant in my morals. Any anti-war people jumping on the bandwagon here are simply pathetic.
The point about this war isn't to liberate Iraq. It's about WOMD, isn't it? Well it was a couple of weeks ago.
No, Saddam is one of the most mostruous bastards on the planet. Hated man who has tortured people I know. Buh bye. What a great thing he's gone and that the torture there will decrease. The US forces in Iraq actually seem to me to be acting (as far as I can see) honestly and humanely, with as much respect as they can for the people they meet, even the ones that were shooting at them a few minutes before. The US at its best. And you won't find a single post where I say anything else.
Now try and wrap your head round this:
The war is wrong. It will still make the area incredibly dangerous, chaotic and unpredictable. It will increase the amount of terrorism. It will mean more dead westerners. It will make more people hate the US. It has already destroyed international alliances. It is seen as empire building by just about the entire planet. The people telling the army what to do are short-sighted and dishonest. I despise Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld.
And back on topic, that bastard Rumsfeld has no right to crap on about breaks in the Geneva convention when the US is doing it too.
That's the whole point of the thread. We KNOW that they're not being protected by the Geneva Convention, but we also know that, like the U.S. Soldiers that have illegally entered Iraq, the illegal combatants held in Cuba SHOULD be protected by the Geneva Convention.
I dont either, most countries break it when no one is looking, or even when they are. and it seems kind of strange, to have RULES for war.. Heck, if the colonials didnt break the rules of war, we may not have won independance.. its like in a fight. "dont throw sand in the guys eyes, its fighting dirty". well, if I am in a fight, since it isnt for a belt or trophy, I do what I have to, to defend myself/win.
Sued? Perhaps we have a language barrier here? I want to give you the opportunity to use a different word before I fly off the handle. I hope you don't mean "prosecuted in a court of law". I would seriously disagree with that. The proper jursidiction? How about a Military Tribunal.
I don't think that a military tribunal is a proper place. I am not a lawyer, but from what i know, military tribunal judges US soldiers only. Court of law judges, crimes commited against US people or in the US. Talibans do not feet the two cases. Lawyers have to find what is the proper juridiction for them. I am not a lawyer and it's not my job to said what type of juridiction they need.
I just say that they must be presented under the right juridiction, who will decide of their future at the light of the values of modern democratic countries. Even if i think that their case is not under the juridiction of the geneva convention, i think they have the right to have a descent trial.
The point about this war isn't to liberate Iraq. It's about WOMD, isn't it? Well it was a couple of weeks ago.
Yeah it is about WMD but I figured most anti-war folks would identify with the humanitarian aspect. But they apparently only indentify with humantarian issues where they can point fingers at the US.
Quote:
The war is wrong. It will still make the area incredibly dangerous, chaotic and unpredictable. It will increase the amount of terrorism.
I guess thats where we differ. It remains to be seen what it does to the area's stability... depending on a lot of factors. I firmly believe regime topple will be a blow to terrorist groups using Iraq for funding, weapons and base of operations.
Quote:
And back on topic, that bastard Rumsfeld has no right to crap on about breaks in the Geneva convention when the US is doing it too.
Thats schoolyard logic. In fact he does. As do the Afgans if there's actually humanitarian issues going on there.
So whatever happened with this red cross visit? I can't find anything on their site?
Here's a one thing I found that attempts to portray some facts about the camp, and breifly mentions the Red Cross visit (don't know much about this website though).
Yeah it is about WMD but I figured most anti-war folks would identify with the humanitarian aspect. But they apparently only indentify with humantarian issues where they can point fingers at the US.
I guess thats where we differ. It remains to be seen what it does to the area's stability... depending on a lot of factors. I firmly believe regime topple will be a blow to terrorist groups using Iraq for funding, weapons and base of operations.
Thats schoolyard logic. In fact he does. As do the Afgans if there's actually humanitarian issues going on there.
No, it doesn't "remain to be seen." Turkey are sending troops over already. Instability is happening. As for Iraq / terror groups, al Qaeda hates Iraq. They're the main one. Base of operations ... hmm ... well, that's just not true. There were those sick bastards in the north, in areas Saddam didn't control I suppose.
Oh yeh, all those new recruits who saw babies with their heads blown off on Arab TV are terrorists NOW and were only thinking about it before the war. We know that for a stone-cold fact too. So I don't see how the hell anyone but the most blinkered cretin could think this will do anything to reduce terror in our world.
Not to derail this ridiculously titled thread too much but where is your bleeding heart for the atrocities suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime. You're willing to bash and dig for anyting to discredit the US but not wiling to liberate a truely oppressed people in Iraq? Doesn't fit your apparently anti-US agenda I guess? I love this double standard you guys have. At least I'm consistant in my morals. Any anti-war people jumping on the bandwagon here are simply pathetic.
I think it's supposed to mean that Rumsfeld, Bush and the rest of the self-righteous conservative hawks should shut the hell up and quit complaining because the U.S. doesn't seem to give a crap about the Geneva Convention.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
the day i see footage coming out of Cuba of those men shot in the face, pants pulled down, with smiling US soldiers is the day you migth have a point.
until then?
Until then?
US Military: Very Bad
Iraq Military: Very, Very Bad
You're quite right, you know.
That 'Very' makes all the difference.
Try to find anything about "illegal combetants" prior to afghan war. It was made up for that occation.
Try to look at this military link that supposely talk about illegal combetants btu in reality talk about why they aren´t real combetants guarded under the rules of PoW. There is no definition on illegal combetants which is very convinient because then everybody else you define as not under the geneve convention or under normal civil law can be declared "illegal combetants", "ice cream" or "muahahaha" with those right you give those categories (whatever you make up).
Originally posted by SDW2001
These are not US citizens.
Some of them are. And some are British and Australian citizens.
The Gtmo prisoners have been improperly handled. The Taliban were the gov't of Afghanistan. It's not up for others to decide - do we really want other countries to get into an argument about whether the Geneva Convention applies to the US because of the the questionable nature of Bush's election?
And it's clear that if they're not regular combatants, they are entitled to a hearing to determine that. And then, this whole "well they're not technically in the US" is just too cute. Doesn't this notion of a never-ending war on terrorism and therefore a never-ending suspension of habeas corpus seem wrong to conservatives?
When people in this thread like alcimedes and SDW and dviant start to make the argument that "we're not as bad as them," that ticks me off. If the Taliban is our standard of comparison, we're in deep, deep trouble.
Hey, maybe that should be our new national motto:
"The US. We're better than the Taliban."
Originally posted by dviant
Not to derail this ridiculously titled thread too much but where is your bleeding heart for the atrocities suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime. You're willing to bash and dig for anyting to discredit the US but not wiling to liberate a truely oppressed people in Iraq? Doesn't fit your apparently anti-US agenda I guess? I love this double standard you guys have. At least I'm consistant in my morals. Any anti-war people jumping on the bandwagon here are simply pathetic.
The point about this war isn't to liberate Iraq. It's about WOMD, isn't it? Well it was a couple of weeks ago.
No, Saddam is one of the most mostruous bastards on the planet. Hated man who has tortured people I know. Buh bye. What a great thing he's gone and that the torture there will decrease. The US forces in Iraq actually seem to me to be acting (as far as I can see) honestly and humanely, with as much respect as they can for the people they meet, even the ones that were shooting at them a few minutes before. The US at its best. And you won't find a single post where I say anything else.
Now try and wrap your head round this:
The war is wrong. It will still make the area incredibly dangerous, chaotic and unpredictable. It will increase the amount of terrorism. It will mean more dead westerners. It will make more people hate the US. It has already destroyed international alliances. It is seen as empire building by just about the entire planet. The people telling the army what to do are short-sighted and dishonest. I despise Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld.
And back on topic, that bastard Rumsfeld has no right to crap on about breaks in the Geneva convention when the US is doing it too.
Originally posted by dviant
Not to derail this ridiculously titled thread too much but where is your bleeding heart for the atrocities suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime[?]
Try Amnesty International if you're looking for a 'bleeding heart for the atrocities suffered at the hands of Saddam' Hussein.
Originally posted by dviant
I love this double standard you guys have. At least I'm consistant in my morals.
I have the feeling that you may have missed the point of this thread. Read what I quoted from you and then start again from the top.
Originally posted by SDW2001
...they are NOT protected by the convention.
That's the whole point of the thread. We KNOW that they're not being protected by the Geneva Convention, but we also know that, like the U.S. Soldiers that have illegally entered Iraq, the illegal combatants held in Cuba SHOULD be protected by the Geneva Convention.
Originally posted by Harald
Which is why Hassan writes:
"under which people detained as suspected members of a militia must be regarded as prisoners of war."
The US has violated the Geneva convention.
actually, if you want to look at the taliban and al queda, they woudn't legally be called a Militia either.
What the implications of that are on the Geneva Convention I really don't care. I don't really care about the Geneva Convention.
Originally posted by groverat
I don't really care about the Geneva Convention.
I dont either, most countries break it when no one is looking, or even when they are. and it seems kind of strange, to have RULES for war.. Heck, if the colonials didnt break the rules of war, we may not have won independance.. its like in a fight. "dont throw sand in the guys eyes, its fighting dirty". well, if I am in a fight, since it isnt for a belt or trophy, I do what I have to, to defend myself/win.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Powerdoc:
Sued? Perhaps we have a language barrier here? I want to give you the opportunity to use a different word before I fly off the handle. I hope you don't mean "prosecuted in a court of law". I would seriously disagree with that. The proper jursidiction? How about a Military Tribunal.
I don't think that a military tribunal is a proper place. I am not a lawyer, but from what i know, military tribunal judges US soldiers only. Court of law judges, crimes commited against US people or in the US. Talibans do not feet the two cases. Lawyers have to find what is the proper juridiction for them. I am not a lawyer and it's not my job to said what type of juridiction they need.
I just say that they must be presented under the right juridiction, who will decide of their future at the light of the values of modern democratic countries. Even if i think that their case is not under the juridiction of the geneva convention, i think they have the right to have a descent trial.
Originally posted by Harald
The point about this war isn't to liberate Iraq. It's about WOMD, isn't it? Well it was a couple of weeks ago.
Yeah it is about WMD but I figured most anti-war folks would identify with the humanitarian aspect. But they apparently only indentify with humantarian issues where they can point fingers at the US.
The war is wrong. It will still make the area incredibly dangerous, chaotic and unpredictable. It will increase the amount of terrorism.
I guess thats where we differ. It remains to be seen what it does to the area's stability... depending on a lot of factors. I firmly believe regime topple will be a blow to terrorist groups using Iraq for funding, weapons and base of operations.
And back on topic, that bastard Rumsfeld has no right to crap on about breaks in the Geneva convention when the US is doing it too.
Thats schoolyard logic. In fact he does. As do the Afgans if there's actually humanitarian issues going on there.
Here's a one thing I found that attempts to portray some facts about the camp, and breifly mentions the Red Cross visit (don't know much about this website though).
Originally posted by dviant
Yeah it is about WMD but I figured most anti-war folks would identify with the humanitarian aspect. But they apparently only indentify with humantarian issues where they can point fingers at the US.
I guess thats where we differ. It remains to be seen what it does to the area's stability... depending on a lot of factors. I firmly believe regime topple will be a blow to terrorist groups using Iraq for funding, weapons and base of operations.
Thats schoolyard logic. In fact he does. As do the Afgans if there's actually humanitarian issues going on there.
No, it doesn't "remain to be seen." Turkey are sending troops over already. Instability is happening. As for Iraq / terror groups, al Qaeda hates Iraq. They're the main one. Base of operations ... hmm ... well, that's just not true. There were those sick bastards in the north, in areas Saddam didn't control I suppose.
Oh yeh, all those new recruits who saw babies with their heads blown off on Arab TV are terrorists NOW and were only thinking about it before the war. We know that for a stone-cold fact too. So I don't see how the hell anyone but the most blinkered cretin could think this will do anything to reduce terror in our world.
Originally posted by dviant
Not to derail this ridiculously titled thread too much but where is your bleeding heart for the atrocities suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime. You're willing to bash and dig for anyting to discredit the US but not wiling to liberate a truely oppressed people in Iraq? Doesn't fit your apparently anti-US agenda I guess? I love this double standard you guys have. At least I'm consistant in my morals. Any anti-war people jumping on the bandwagon here are simply pathetic.
NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!
What was that?
That, mes amis, was the sound of the moral high ground whizzing past you and away into the sunset after the fashion of Michael 'The Robot' Schumacher.
Originally posted by groverat
I don't really care about the Geneva Convention.
I'll keep that in mind when I see pictures and television footage of allegedly (and most likely) executed US Soldiers.
Originally posted by audiopollution
I'll keep that in mind when I see pictures and television footage of allegedly (and most likely) executed US Soldiers.
What is that supposed to mean?
Originally posted by dviant
So whatever happened with this red cross visit? I can't find anything on their site?
The ICRC declared that the detainees were prisoners or war. They were ignored by the detaining power.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...cuba.redcross/
Originally posted by groverat
What is that supposed to mean?
I think it's supposed to mean that Rumsfeld, Bush and the rest of the self-righteous conservative hawks should shut the hell up and quit complaining because the U.S. doesn't seem to give a crap about the Geneva Convention.