And a thread to learn how to make a website that shows up in web browsers (as opposed to trying to connect to a multiplayer game) probably belongs in the Genius Bar.
Did Graner's quote get posted here yet?
"The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.' "
Just so we are all clear, about this whole issue, terrorists and non-uniformed combatants are not afforded the Geneva Conventions. those are for Uniformed state sponsored armies and their personnel.
No, but try this on for size:
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
This is widely recognised to be so widely acceded to as to now be part of the international customary law (or so said my International Law lecturer, and who am I to question the wisdom of J.P. Fonteyne?)
Oh: and the US was one of the last to ratify it, on the 8th September 1992.
Article 9 is pretty interesting too:
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
I wonder how that applies to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (especially if these people aren't POWs)?
Edit: while I'm at it, you might want to ponder the implications of the UN charter on the legality of the whole US action:
Charter of the United Nations
Article 2 (4)
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state?
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. ?
Note that the right to attack a country is only reserved if that country has actually attacked the country exercising the right of self-defence, unless there has been a resolution of the Security Council authorising the use of force. September 11 doesn't count, because Iraq didn't do it.
Note the lack of mention of pre-emptive defence? Thought so.
And this is definitely a part of international customary law, as was decided concerning the US action in Nicaragua in the Nicaragua case (Merits) by the ICJ.
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
This is widely recognised to be so widely acceded to as to now be part of the international customary law (or so said my International Law lecturer, and who am I to question the wisdom of J.P. Fonteyne?)
Oh: and the US was one of the last to ratify it, on the 8th September 1992.
Article 9 is pretty interesting too:
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
I wonder how that applies to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (especially if these people aren't POWs)?
Edit: while I'm at it, you might want to ponder the implications of the UN charter on the legality of the whole US action:
Charter of the United Nations
Article 2 (4)
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state?
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. ?
Note that the right to attack a country is only reserved if that country has actually attacked the country exercising the right of self-defence, unless there has been a resolution of the Security Council authorising the use of force. September 11 doesn't count, because Iraq didn't do it.
Note the lack of mention of pre-emptive defence? Thought so.
And this is definitely a part of international customary law, as was decided concerning the US action in Nicaragua in the Nicaragua case (Merits) by the ICJ.
FUCK, you're right. How can I have not seen this before? Let's tear down the whole fucking system of international human rights ? because there are rogue states out there.
I won't say anything further because ad hom's are against the posting guidelines.
edit: it is nice to see though that you see the similarity between the actions of Iraq, Syria, and Iran and those of the US.
FUCK, you're right. How can I have not seen this before? Let's tear down the whole fucking system of international human rights ? because there are rogue states out there.
I won't say anything further because ad hom's are against the posting guidelines.
The UN is an impotent bureaucracy. That document like virtually all from the UN are worth less then the paper they are written on.
I think that most clear thinking people can see that.
The UN is an impotent bureaucracy. That document like virtually all from the UN are worth less then the paper they are written on.
I think that most clear thinking people can see that.
And you don't think that the flagrant abuse of the most fundamental tenets of the IHR system by supposedly "leading" states like the US is one of the major causes of the general lack of respect of the system? It's pretty hard to take seriously when even the US apparently couldn't give a toss about human rights.
As for the UN being ineffective, I suggest you tell that to the millions of refugees helped by the UNHCR and the hundreds of thousands of people saved by UN Peacekeeping missions in places like Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Balkans and elsewhere.
Perhaps it would be more effective if the US ever bothered paying its dues, rather than spending the money on nuclear weapon development?
"The US - as good as some of the worst dictatorships worldwide" - or what are you trying to say?
Really, if I ever had to defend my country by pointing out it acted no worse than Iran and Syria, I'd be pretty ashamed.
If you put out a non-enforceable and so obviously bogus agreement and you have the likes of Iraq. Iran, Syria, you can see how much weight that document has. Did you say it was ratified when, '92, would that have been under Clinton? Why sign something that noone had any intention of upholding.
You saw what the insurgents, now thought to be former regime members, felt about one of the other meaningless UN covenants or treaties.
This is what I can't understand. The US for the most part tries to be civil as possible, yet when atrocities against the US happen people automatically assume that it did something to deserve it!
This is what I can't understand. The US for the most part tries to be civil as possible...
You might try moving beyond getting all your political news from Highlights. It might be the reason you are having a hard time understanding what's going on. \
You might try moving beyond getting all your political news from Highlights. It might be the reason you are having a hard time understanding what's going on. \
Just a thought.
There's actually a term for this: eristic
It's used to describe someone who argues for the sake of argument (or argues to win) as opposed to someone who argues to seek the truth.
You might try moving beyond getting all your political news from Highlights. It might be the reason you are having a hard time understanding what's going on. \
You know, the more I try to have conversations with you people here in AO, the more I wonder if I am actually taking to adults.
I know you will just say something like "look who's talking!" or "Pot calling the kettle black" or some bogus psychology. But the fact remains, I have diligently tried to refrain from the inevitable "flame wars" and juvenile name calling. I choose my words carefully, so I am not doing the very thing I am complaining about.
I had a conversation with jimmac a while back and he called me every name you can think of because I was disagreeing with him. I eventually (much to late) realized it was going nowhere. I then decided to try to agree with him, he then called me even more names and further questioned my sanity, intellect, and age. I think I tried the same thing with Giant at one point with much the same result. He however thinks it's funny or clever to criticize websites that I have worked on and listed on my site. (Although the funnier thing is I don't like some of the same ones he is making fun of, so it is a zero gain for him.)
Like many of you I have an opinion based on many factors. Even if similar it will most likely be different than yours. Do you really need to sink to such a low standard to get your point across.
I am actually getting bored with the whole thing and am considering leaving and not coming back. Not that you guys need me, in particular, but is that what you want to accomplish? A liberal borg-like groupthink forum.
I have learned a lot here, believe it or not, mostly from you left leaners. I really thought that was the purpose of these forums. I am convinced that many here don't look at it that way.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Hey don't you have a thread criticizing my websites over at macnn to update or something?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Hey don't you have a thread criticizing my websites over at macnn to update or something?
You do know how to start another thread don't you?
Did Graner's quote get posted here yet?
"The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May21.html
Originally posted by NaplesX
Just so we are all clear, about this whole issue, terrorists and non-uniformed combatants are not afforded the Geneva Conventions. those are for Uniformed state sponsored armies and their personnel.
No, but try this on for size:
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
This is widely recognised to be so widely acceded to as to now be part of the international customary law (or so said my International Law lecturer, and who am I to question the wisdom of J.P. Fonteyne?)
You can find it here. It's well worth a read, if rather less interesting than the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
Oh: and the US was one of the last to ratify it, on the 8th September 1992.
Article 9 is pretty interesting too:
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
I wonder how that applies to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (especially if these people aren't POWs)?
Edit: while I'm at it, you might want to ponder the implications of the UN charter on the legality of the whole US action:
Charter of the United Nations
Article 2 (4)
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state?
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. ?
Note that the right to attack a country is only reserved if that country has actually attacked the country exercising the right of self-defence, unless there has been a resolution of the Security Council authorising the use of force. September 11 doesn't count, because Iraq didn't do it.
Note the lack of mention of pre-emptive defence? Thought so.
And this is definitely a part of international customary law, as was decided concerning the US action in Nicaragua in the Nicaragua case (Merits) by the ICJ.
As Cambone put it: "From the outset, the United States government has recognized and made clear that the Geneva Conventions apply."
Torture? Homicide? Abuse?
Oh, we're now getting into kidnapping Iraqi civilians as well. Great.
Originally posted by staphbaby
No, but try this on for size:
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
This is widely recognised to be so widely acceded to as to now be part of the international customary law (or so said my International Law lecturer, and who am I to question the wisdom of J.P. Fonteyne?)
You can find it here. It's well worth a read, if rather less interesting than the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
Oh: and the US was one of the last to ratify it, on the 8th September 1992.
Article 9 is pretty interesting too:
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
I wonder how that applies to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (especially if these people aren't POWs)?
Edit: while I'm at it, you might want to ponder the implications of the UN charter on the legality of the whole US action:
Charter of the United Nations
Article 2 (4)
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state?
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. ?
Note that the right to attack a country is only reserved if that country has actually attacked the country exercising the right of self-defence, unless there has been a resolution of the Security Council authorising the use of force. September 11 doesn't count, because Iraq didn't do it.
Note the lack of mention of pre-emptive defence? Thought so.
And this is definitely a part of international customary law, as was decided concerning the US action in Nicaragua in the Nicaragua case (Merits) by the ICJ.
To show how much that document means:
iraq ratified it in 1976 as did Iran and Syria.
Don't forget to mention those minute facts.
Originally posted by NaplesX
To show how much that document means:
iraq ratified it in 1976 as did Iran and Syria.
Don't forget to mention those minute facts.
FUCK, you're right. How can I have not seen this before? Let's tear down the whole fucking system of international human rights ? because there are rogue states out there.
I won't say anything further because ad hom's are against the posting guidelines.
edit: it is nice to see though that you see the similarity between the actions of Iraq, Syria, and Iran and those of the US.
Originally posted by staphbaby
FUCK, you're right. How can I have not seen this before? Let's tear down the whole fucking system of international human rights ? because there are rogue states out there.
I won't say anything further because ad hom's are against the posting guidelines.
The UN is an impotent bureaucracy. That document like virtually all from the UN are worth less then the paper they are written on.
I think that most clear thinking people can see that.
Does anyone know where he lives, I think I've found a use for my C40
Originally posted by MarcUK
Its a shame that even though I have put NaplesX on my ignore list, that I still get to see the utter crap he posts when someone else quotes him.
Does anyone know where he lives, I think I've found a use for my C40
Naples, FL
Originally posted by NaplesX
The UN is an impotent bureaucracy. That document like virtually all from the UN are worth less then the paper they are written on.
I think that most clear thinking people can see that.
And you don't think that the flagrant abuse of the most fundamental tenets of the IHR system by supposedly "leading" states like the US is one of the major causes of the general lack of respect of the system? It's pretty hard to take seriously when even the US apparently couldn't give a toss about human rights.
As for the UN being ineffective, I suggest you tell that to the millions of refugees helped by the UNHCR and the hundreds of thousands of people saved by UN Peacekeeping missions in places like Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Balkans and elsewhere.
Perhaps it would be more effective if the US ever bothered paying its dues, rather than spending the money on nuclear weapon development?
Originally posted by NaplesX
To show how much that document means:
iraq ratified it in 1976 as did Iran and Syria.
Don't forget to mention those minute facts.
"The US - as good as some of the worst dictatorships worldwide" - or what are you trying to say?
Really, if I ever had to defend my country by pointing out it acted no worse than Iran and Syria, I'd be pretty ashamed.
Originally posted by Smircle
"The US - as good as some of the worst dictatorships worldwide" - or what are you trying to say?
Really, if I ever had to defend my country by pointing out it acted no worse than Iran and Syria, I'd be pretty ashamed.
If you put out a non-enforceable and so obviously bogus agreement and you have the likes of Iraq. Iran, Syria, you can see how much weight that document has. Did you say it was ratified when, '92, would that have been under Clinton? Why sign something that noone had any intention of upholding.
You saw what the insurgents, now thought to be former regime members, felt about one of the other meaningless UN covenants or treaties.
This is what I can't understand. The US for the most part tries to be civil as possible, yet when atrocities against the US happen people automatically assume that it did something to deserve it!
Originally posted by NaplesX
This is what I can't understand. The US for the most part tries to be civil as possible...
You might try moving beyond getting all your political news from Highlights. It might be the reason you are having a hard time understanding what's going on.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by giant
You might try moving beyond getting all your political news from Highlights. It might be the reason you are having a hard time understanding what's going on.
Just a thought.
There's actually a term for this: eristic
It's used to describe someone who argues for the sake of argument (or argues to win) as opposed to someone who argues to seek the truth.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by giant
You might try moving beyond getting all your political news from Highlights. It might be the reason you are having a hard time understanding what's going on.
Yeah, you are right, that is good advice.
Here, let me try:
Grow up.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Here, let me try:
Grow up.
eeeewwww . . . .burned!
sizzled!
.
.
Originally posted by midwinter
It's used to describe someone who argues for the sake of argument (or argues to win) as opposed to someone who argues to seek the truth.
Ah, yes. The life of the neighborhood sophist.
All the more interesting with childlike naivety saturating each argument. One would think the events @ Abu Ghraib would put most people past that.
I know you will just say something like "look who's talking!" or "Pot calling the kettle black" or some bogus psychology. But the fact remains, I have diligently tried to refrain from the inevitable "flame wars" and juvenile name calling. I choose my words carefully, so I am not doing the very thing I am complaining about.
I had a conversation with jimmac a while back and he called me every name you can think of because I was disagreeing with him. I eventually (much to late) realized it was going nowhere. I then decided to try to agree with him, he then called me even more names and further questioned my sanity, intellect, and age. I think I tried the same thing with Giant at one point with much the same result. He however thinks it's funny or clever to criticize websites that I have worked on and listed on my site. (Although the funnier thing is I don't like some of the same ones he is making fun of, so it is a zero gain for him.)
Like many of you I have an opinion based on many factors. Even if similar it will most likely be different than yours. Do you really need to sink to such a low standard to get your point across.
I am actually getting bored with the whole thing and am considering leaving and not coming back. Not that you guys need me, in particular, but is that what you want to accomplish? A liberal borg-like groupthink forum.
I have learned a lot here, believe it or not, mostly from you left leaners. I really thought that was the purpose of these forums. I am convinced that many here don't look at it that way.