Politics and Philosophy: Charging the US with War Crimes

[vinva]

The use of cluster bombs is specifically prohibited.

You didn't prove last time that use of them is a war crime and you haven't proved it yet here...

[Funkyalligator]

What war crimes? We haven't done a single thing that could be construed as war crimes....this is a pointless discussion...

[Air Force Cane]

"an unchecked nation"?!!

wtf are you talking about? we have something called a Constitution.

Ever heard of it?

[Crazyhorse1]

You didn't prove last time that use of them is a war crime and you haven't proved it yet here...

I quoted chapter and verse of the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't do any good to argue with me about whether they are there are not. I didn't put them there. They're there, finis. In regard to torture being policy, Rummy signed off on interrogations allowed (no secret there): water boarding, stripping naked specifically prohibited: also, torture camps secretly constructed and now admitted (slam dunk guilty). I also provided chapter and verse from Conventions about above. Bush and crew are totally reliant on the protection of a Republican congress to stay out of prison. If, say, both houses fell to the dems and Kerry were elected President, Bush and his gang would be headed off to the Hague, a point not lost on any of them.

[Crazyhorse1]

JP you missed the post where he stated he was an "Expert on the Geneva Conventions"...surely he knows what he is talking about:laugh:

I missed that post as well. But, anyway, here's your chance to learn something about the Geneva Conventions and see why we're nailed, have no wiggle room, and I'm less full of ... than you may suppose.

Here are the Geneva Conventions relating to treatment of Prisoners.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Better start wiggling.

[vinva]

I quoted chapter and verse of the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't do any good to argue with me about whether they are there are not. I didn't put them there. They're there, finis. In regard to torture being policy, Rummy signed off on interrogations allowed (no secret there): water boarding, stripping naked specifically prohibited: also, torture camps secretly constructed and now admitted (slam dunk guilty). I also provided chapter and verse from Conventions about above. Bush and crew are totally reliant on the protection of a Republican congress to stay out of prison. If, say, both houses fell to the dems and Kerry were elected President, Bush and his gang would be headed off to the Hague, a point not lost on any of them.

Must have missed that...link to the thread?

[luckydevil]

"an unchecked nation"?!!

wtf are you talking about? we have something called a Constitution.

Ever heard of it?

It would be nice if our government actually paid attention to it.

[Predicto]

I quoted chapter and verse of the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't do any good to argue with me about whether they are there are not. I didn't put them there. They're there, finis. In regard to torture being policy, Rummy signed off on interrogations allowed (no secret there): water boarding, stripping naked specifically prohibited: also, torture camps secretly constructed and now admitted (slam dunk guilty). I also provided chapter and verse from Conventions about above. Bush and crew are totally reliant on the protection of a Republican congress to stay out of prison. If, say, both houses fell to the dems and Kerry were elected President, Bush and his gang would be headed off to the Hague, a point not lost on any of them.

You keep thinking what you want. I know that it is not that cut and dried, I know that there is no effective enforcement mechanism for international law nor any consistent standards for its interpretation, and I know that the US will not be shipping any of its former leaders off to the Hague, no matter which party is in power. This is a pipe dream.

[vinva]

I missed that post as well. But, anyway, here's your chance to learn something about the Geneva Conventions and see why we're nailed, have no wiggle room, and I'm less full of ... than you may suppose.

Here are the Geneva Conventions relating to treatment of Prisoners.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Better start wiggling.

Please, tell me what group any of the people we are capturing in Iraq now fall under in Article 4.

[HailYeah]

What you have to comprehend is that the measuring stick you're using (at least partially) for success is about the single worst one out there. Success/Greatness is not measured by how well liked one is.

No but failure is quite often attributed to how disliked one is.

Success/Greatness is measured by knowing the difference between Right & Wrong, vocalizing those differences, and ACTING on them; whether that makes other people happy or not.

Clearly you truly believe that the US can never be mislead or be on the wrong side of history ever so there's no point in addressing this arrogance. But I applaud your convictions.

As for the UN and the international community in general.... So far as I'm concerned we need to get out of and away from as many entanglements & alliances with them as is possible.

By "entanglements" are you including "wars." Surely not. I think this Empire's last words will reflect this mentality. A cry of "**** the world", if you will. Sounds promising.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

No but failure is quite often attributed to how disliked one is.

Only if you allow others input into the plan or involvement in the plan. If one acts unilaterally, there is no one to take the credit or blame but ourselves.

Clearly you truly believe that the US can never be mislead or be on the wrong side of history ever so there's no point in addressing this arrogance. But I applaud your convictions.

LOL. That's about as untrue as could be. I definitely believe that the US has been in the wrong MANY times in the past and is wrong in many of its current activities.

By "entanglements" are you including "wars." Surely not. I think this Empire's last words will reflect this mentality. A cry of "**** the world", if you will. Sounds promising.

Yes, for the most part Wars would be included in those entanglements. I was thinking more along the lines of strategic alliances, military treaties, international organizations and such, but yes military conflicts would be included as well.

As for the cry of "**** the world"... Sounds good to me.

[Crazyhorse1]

Please, tell me what group any of the people we are capturing in Iraq now fall under in Article 4.

All Iraqi insurgents fall under the protection of Article 4. They use banners or flags of Iraq or Islam, carry weapons openly, and employ a command structure. They have every right to defend their homeland from invasion and actually have no real means of violating most customs of wars, such as use of illegal weapons, etc. There is no indication that Al Qaida is functioning as other than a conventional militia in Iraq, in open warfare with the U.S.: at any rate, as you can see, Article 4 does not exclude terrorists groups or define them. Lastly, Article 4 does not address civilian detanees. Other parts of the Conventions strictly protects civilian detanees.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

All Iraqi insurgents fall under the protection of Article 4. They use banners or flags of Iraq or Islam, carry weapons openly, and employ a command structure. They have every right to defend their homeland from invasion and actually have no real means of violating most customs of wars, such as use of illegal weapons, etc. There is no indication that Al Qaida is functioning as other than a conventional militia in Iraq, in open warfare with the U.S.: at any rate, as you can see, Article 4 does not exclude terrorists groups or define them. Lastly, Article 4 does not address civilian detanees. Other parts of the Conventions strictly protects civilian detanees.

Let the record show that Crazyhorse1 is a supporter of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

[Duncan]

The rise of big business in this country is directly tied to the rise of big government. If you really want to get serious about confronting big business, folks on you side of the aisle have to get serious about confronting big government.

AMEN

[Brianbien83]

All Iraqi insurgents fall under the protection of Article 4. They use banners or flags of Iraq or Islam, carry weapons openly, and employ a command structure. They have every right to defend their homeland from invasion and actually have no real means of violating most customs of wars, such as use of illegal weapons, etc. There is no indication that Al Qaida is functioning as other than a conventional militia in Iraq, in open warfare with the U.S.: at any rate, as you can see, Article 4 does not exclude terrorists groups or define them. Lastly, Article 4 does not address civilian detanees. Other parts of the Conventions strictly protects civilian detanees.

Just curious what your stance is on the groups who kidnap and behead prisoners...oh, and videotape it for good measure. Are we going to see these folks taken to trial? Probably not. Are there videotapes of the murder of US detainees? Nope. Are there pictures of torture? Nope. Humiliation, yes. Was it right, no. Was it a war crime...no. You mention all of the records that we have that nail the U.S. dead to rights on war crimes. Where are they and what are the sources? I would wager that if Bush authorized such things, even he isn't dumb enough to PUT HIS NAME ON IT. Neither is Rumsfeld.

[Crazyhorse1]

Let the record show that Crazyhorse1 is a supporter of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The folks who created the Geneva Conventions recognized only two types of people ultimately: combatants and non-combatants. There are different rules for each, but still the overall goal in regard to torture was to stop all torture world wide, not to nit-pick or call one group entitled and the other not entitled to protection. Torture is wrong. What do you have against that concept? What religion has taught you otherwise?

Bush's nonsense about it being ok to torture people who are not wearing uniforms or it being lawful to make people stand naked eight hours a day are so much B.S. Instead of falling for another of his lies, why don't you just read the Conventions? Go to google, type in Geneva Conventions. Read.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

The folks who created the Geneva Conventions recognized only two types of people ultimately: combatants and non-combatants. There are different rules for each, but still the overall goal in regard to torture was to stop all torture world wide, not to nit-pick or call one group entitled and the other not entitled to protection. Torture is wrong. What do you have against that concept? What religion has taught you otherwise?

Bush's nonsense about it being ok to torture people who are not wearing uniforms or it being lawful to make people stand naked eight hours a day are so much B.S. Instead of falling for another of his lies, why don't you just read the Conventions? Go to google, type in Geneva Conventions. Read.

They have every right to defend their homeland from invasion .

Traitor

Hypocrite

Al-Qaeda Apologist

Oh, and did you know that Al Qaeda in Iraq is composed mostly of foreigners (non-Iraqi nationalists)? It's not their 'homeland'.

Seriously, it's time for you to reconcile your current life and status with your true sentiments: renounce your US citizenship, get the hell out of this country, and move to one of those s**t hole countries in the Middle East.

[skinfan133]

Not making any points quite yet.

Short Answer: Realistically, I think the US is doing what they have to do to be Number 1 in the world and support it fully. But I think it's VERY shortsighted and the exact same mistakes all fallen empires in the past are being made.

Actually, I did make a point. No one is going to tell the US a goddamn thing. We're not monitored and our global fate is left in the hands of a very select few. A select few that could give a **** about you or me.

ill say youre not making any points.

the only thing that will bring the US down prematurly are fools like you, un-american fools. if you want to point the finger at YOUR nation and cry foul, theres a great country called france that would love to have people like you.

of course we're not monitored, id like to see anyone try, and im guessing you want some kind of word police that america answers to, is that the UN? please dont make me laugh, the UN cant do a damn thing for the good of humanity, they're usless. and if they try and swing their 'mighty' stick here, ill promply ask for my 5 acres of land in new york back.

[skinfan133]

He can be charged and convicted in the United States or turned over for trial and conviction at the Hague. He can also be kidnapped from the United States and legally tried and convicted for war crimes in another country.

man you never cease to amaze me crazyhorse, you know im not a fan of bush, but i am a fan of the integrity of the US presidency and our COUNTRY, unlike you. but thats your right i guess, but to continue in response to this specific part of your post:

THE WORLD COURT!? your kidding right? thats reserved for madmen like hitler or stalin or pol pot or hussien, not bush...

now i know your some kind of wierd anti-american fr sure, you would actually endorse the KIDNAPING of our leader? i dont care what the poles are, he could have 0% aproval, that would not be tolerated and no mater how bad the leader there are 3 branches of governent, one shuts down they all shut down. plus you really dont think the military would stand by and let the president be KIDAPED? what about the secret service, you think a team can get by them ALIVE nd undetected into the white house or around the presidents general area and take him without their notice?:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

you are crazy.

plus another nation idnaping our president would definatly spark a REAL war that is very bloody. i dont care who our president is, if someone kidnaps him and puts him on trial in another country i will do all in my power to DESTROY the purpotrators... and i guarentee most military guys and hopefuls like myself would say the same (i hope they would).

its people like you that make me greatly question the freedom to say stupid things...

[TradeTheBeal!]

Traitor

Hypocrite

Al-Qaeda Apologist

Oh, and did you know that Al Qaeda in Iraq is composed mostly of foreigners (non-Iraqi nationalists)? It's not their 'homeland'.

Seriously, it's time for you to reconcile your current life and status with your true sentiments: renounce your US citizenship, get the hell out of this country, and move to one of those s**t hole countries in the Middle East.

Uhh, you know that Al-Queda didn't implode WTC7, don't you? Al-Queda would not survive a conflict with the VA National Guard and neither they nor Osama has anything to do with our foriegn policy objectives at this point. Except, of course, to justify it.

BTW, real Americans can engage in vigorous debate about our nation's future without resorting to the tired "love it or leave it" stuff. How about this, if you feel so strongly about the "evils" of Islamic extremism then get your ass over there and start taking care of business in Darfur! You can leave the educated debate to those better qualified.

Traitorous Hypocrite!

[luckydevil]

the only thing that will bring the US down prematurly are fools like you, un-american fools. if you want to point the finger at YOUR nation and cry foul,

Un-American, for what? Questioning the policies of our government? We should all be concerned about the lack of checks and balances.

[skinfan133]

I quoted chapter and verse of the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't do any good to argue with me about whether they are there are not.

hey dumb **** cluster bombs werent even invented or dreamed of in their current state when teh conventions were first drafted, you ARE NOT and expert on foriegn afairs so stop pretending to be, either that or go back to college and get a degree in the feld, then we'll talk about this.

[skinfan133]

Un-American, for what? Questioning the policies of our government? We should all be concerned about the lack of checks and balances.

questioning is ok, questioning in a 'blame america' fasion is un-american.

id say theres plenty of checks and balances in america, its outlined in our constitution you know.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

This...

Uhh, you know that Al-Queda didn't implode WTC7, don't you? Al-Queda would not survive a conflict with the VA National Guard and neither they nor Osama has anything to do with our foriegn policy objectives at this point. Except, of course, to justify it..

Followed up by this..

You can leave the educated debate to those better qualified.

Yes, you are certainly very well qualified to serve as a spokesperson for Al-Qaeda or, minimally, as a flunky for Al-Jazeera.

Get a life.

[skinfan133]

I missed that post as well. But, anyway, here's your chance to learn something about the Geneva Conventions and see why we're nailed, have no wiggle room, and I'm less full of ... than you may suppose.

Here are the Geneva Conventions relating to treatment of Prisoners.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Better start wiggling.

why are you so willing to condem the US? what was the batahn death march? hmm? how many japs were actually tried in the world courts for that? the mistreatment of prisoners is wrong but i have stresed in the past and ill stress it now, the US should not be held responsible for Abu Gharib, the dumb ****s in the US army who were responsible for this incident should be held responsible, not our entire country nor the government.

plus under article 4 i believe the insurgents do not qualify as enemy combatants... they have no uniforms, no insignia, no clear form of military organization, and i stress this final point, NO ADHERANCE to the rules of warfare, plus these guys fail to follow the geneva conventions themselves when the capture our contractors and behead them.