Politics and Philosophy: Charging the US with War Crimes

[luckydevil]

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

What the hell does that mean?

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

There are a lot of things in our constitution, doesn't mean our government is actually following it.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

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.

and you are quoting the geneva conventions out of context, you are using the mistreatment of prisoners passage to suport a completely diffrent issue.

What's even funnier is that he's pointing you to a Geneva Convention "source" on a website with a .ch domain. Freakin' hysterical!!!

[skinfan133]

What the hell does that mean?

There are a lot of things in our constitution, doesn't mean our government is actually following it.

you and i both know where i stand, we have gone over it civily many times, i apologise for my bluntness but my blood is boiling right now....

even though i am acting out of character a little here i am a moderate republican, an old fashioned type conservative. ahh im tired of explaining it, PM chom he'll stand up for me, not my views, but for me.

im tired i think im off to the sack now, but itll take a while to go to sleep, my blood is boiling on high.

[luckydevil]

you and i both know where i stand, we have gone over it civily many times,,

Really? I just want to know what "questioning in a 'blame america' fashion" means

As far as being an old time conservative, an old time conservative would never support our current foreign policy. Read some Kirk or Burke and get back to me. You are more of a new time conservative.

[skinfan133]

Really? I just want to know what "questioning in a 'blame america' fashion" means

i guess i didnt word it right, people who (like crazyhorse) question our government, not out of concern for themselves or others, but soley fr making a hulabaloo. he obviously has no idea what he is talking about.

the blame america types go out of their way to always make the US look like the buly and the bad guy, whether its true or not, those are the typesi strongly dislike.

questioning your governmet is ok, exsesivly trying to undermine your nation is not.

[skinfan133]

Really? I just want to know what "questioning in a 'blame america' fashion" means

As far as being an old time conservative, an old time conservative would never support our current foreign policy. Read some Kirk or Burke and get back to me. You are more of a new time conservative.

dude ok maybe you dont know where i stand, I DO NOT support our current policy:doh:

dont be so quick to jump the gun, ill outline basicaly what i believe in a nutshell before i go to sleep, if i can, im still furious with the content of this thread.

i believe in small government, low taxes for all people, i believe in perserving the environment, i beieve in the constitution fo the united states and i believe in strong nationalism.

very brief, but if you wanted to see everything i believe that would be quite alot of skimming...maybe i should just do a thread on my eliefs and save everyone the trouble:)

[Crazyhorse1]

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

Let the record show that Crazyhorse supports the Geneva Conventions and will not allow the torture of a member of Al-Qaeda or anyone else in any circumstance. In fact, if Crazyhorse catches you doing it, he will use whatever force is necessary to bring you to justice. He has done it before and will do it again.

[luckydevil]

dude ok maybe you dont know where i stand, I DO NOT support our current policy:doh:

You don't support the Iraq war? My bad, if that is the case

[skinfan133]

You don't support the Iraq war? My bad, if that is the case

i suport the taking out of power of husien, i dont support (if is the case) the president going to war under false reasons, i would have been perfectly fine with him saying, lets get rid of saddam.

btw i dispise the president, he gives a bad name to true conservatism. the whole republican think tank has become... well less conservative imo recently

[skinfan133]

this time im truly done for the night, crazyhorse, man i weep for my country knowing there ae peope like you out there.

[TradeTheBeal!]

This...

Followed up by this..

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.

Get a Life!

Get a Life!

That's freaking brilliant my man.

You're right, I need to stop trying to formulate and defend my own opinions and start regurgitating what I hear on my TV and radio.

You sir, are cowardly and sheepish and in the absence of your TV idols you would worship my superior intellect, if I deemed you of some use.

I suppose I can expect to be called Hussien or Khomeini now.

[luckydevil]

i suport the taking out of power of husien, i dont support (if is the case) the president going to war under false reasons, i would have been perfectly fine with him saying, lets get rid of saddam.

btw i dispise the president, he gives a bad name to true conservatism. the whole republican think tank has become... well less conservative imo recently

Old Time conservatives like Russell Kirk were opposed to the first Gulf War.

I am just curious, what exactly is true conservatism to you. You don't strike me as an old-time conservative. You come across as more of a moderate conservative.

[Crazyhorse1]

No, it isn't. I'm a liberal and completely opposed to this war, but it just not that simple. FYI - I have studied international law and was an editor of an international law journal in Law School.

Do not let well-meaning activist interpretations of international law standards mislead you. International law is notoriously squishy. Only in the most egregious cases (such as genocide) is it clear what the definitive answer is. Nor is it appropriate to judge the US on a tougher standard than any other countries. Thus, while it is true that the US has killed lots of civilians in this war, it is also true that the US goes out if its way NOT to kill civilians to an extraordinary degree. And while it is not appropriate to wage aggressive wars, it may be argued that war to enforce UN resolutions are not such wars. Even the torture is not attributable to the US unless you can demonstrate that the government has a deliberate policy of torture - atrocities have happened in every war since time began.

In sum, we are not "definitively nailed."

Weapons that kill indiscriminately (cluster bombs) are specifically banned. Causing excessive loss of civilian life is a war crime (we've killed over 250,000 Iraqis while claiming to kill 35,000), the attack on a Faluja (a residental area) was a war crime), a policy of torture has been admitted by the White House and defended, and starting an aggressive war based on phoney info is also a war crime. The case is a slam dunk.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Let the record show that Crazyhorse supports the Geneva Conventions and will not allow the torture of a member of Al-Qaeda or anyone else in any circumstance. In fact, if Crazyhorse catches you doing it, he will use whatever force is necessary to bring you to justice. He has done it before and will do it again.

Sure you have. What a delusional freak.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Get a Life!

Get a Life!

That's freaking brilliant my man.

You're right, I need to stop trying to formulate and defend my own opinions and start regurgitating what I hear on my TV and radio.

You sir, are cowardly and sheepish and in the absence of your TV idols you would worship my superior intellect, if I deemed you of some use.

I suppose I can expect to be called Hussien or Khomeini now.

You're just as delusional as crazyhorse. Yeah... it takes a "superior intellect" to twist 9/11 into a consipracy theory. What a pathethic specimen you are.

[Crazyhorse1]

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.

People who harm prisoners in any way are war criminals and should be punished by international law. Yes, there are tapes of of the murder of U.S.detainees as well as Iraqi detainees and pictures of U.S. torture. Rumsfeld signed General Miller's torture order at Abu Ghraib and personally supervised the torture of a prisoner at Gitmo. Rummy and Gonzalez admit coming up with techniques used to interrogate prisoners and vehemently defend them. They include water boarding and the used of nudity, as well as causing extreme fatigue, all in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The administration not only admits it, it defends it. So it is impossible to argue it doesn't commit war crimes in this area.

[TradeTheBeal!]

You're just as delusional as crazyhorse. Yeah... it takes a "superior intellect" to twist 9/11 into a consipracy theory. What a pathethic specimen you are.

consipracy = conspiracy

pathethic = pathetic

I see why you are "Bushfan", you are likely the only guy in a hundred mile radius of the White House that GW is smarter than!

So, do you work at Kinko's or Jiffy Lube?

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

consipracy = conspiracy

pathethic = pathetic

I see why you are "Bushfan", you are likely the only guy in a hundred mile radius of the White House that GW is smarter than!

So, do you work at Kinko's or Jiffy Lube?

It's 1:30 in the morning. So, are red herrings the best that your "superior intellect" can muster?

[TradeTheBeal!]

It's 1:30 in the morning. So, are red herrings the best that your "superior intellect" can muster?

Where I work would send you into convulsions.

Alright..truce!

I just wanted to give you a taste of your own RX by slinging a bunch of personal attacks at you. Nothing personal, only some pointless posting.

[Crazyhorse1]

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.

Does Red Riding Hood pick flowers in the woods?

I'll tell you about insurgents. Insurgents are people whose homelands have been invaded and in reaction to that invasion have risen up to throw the invaders outl

On the other hand Al Qaida is an international terrorists outfit that is sending some fighters into Iraq. They are not insurgents, do not have my support, and believe in a strange Allah, just as you believe in a strange, blood thirsty Jehovah.

I did not say Al Qaida were insurgents or that Iraq was the homeland of Al Qaida. Try to stay focused.

You have also forgotten that I am an Indian, the only true American presently involved in our conversation. Your people came here unwelcomed, lied about everything, tore uo everything, gunned down everything that moved, made slave of you own people, and have just about proven yourselves to be the most disgusting people on earth.

That you can even talk about disgracing your country by committing war crimes and other acts of torture make me sich at the stomach.

[vinva]

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.

Many legal scholars disagree with you...

[vinva]

Weapons that kill indiscriminately (cluster bombs) are specifically banned.

Please prove that the specific bombs that we are using are banned.

[Thiebear]

Cluster bombs are used all the time for airports and such?

When were they banned?

The Geneva Convention specifically does not apply to personnel that have no command structure and wear no uniforms blend back into the community before/after an attack.

To call Crazyhorse / Crazy is redundant... the ignore button is so much easier...

[Larry]

And here we have Oakton's entire "contribution" to this thread:

:laugh:

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

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.

Sure you have. What a delusional freak.

You're just as delusional as crazyhorse. Yeah... it takes a "superior intellect" to twist 9/11 into a consipracy theory. What a pathethic specimen you are.

It's 1:30 in the morning. So, are red herrings the best that your "superior intellect" can muster?

6 posts.

5 posts containing words.

9 insults.

1 piece of information brought to the debate.

Better than usual.

[Crazyhorse1]

Cluster bombs are used all the time for airports and such?

When were they banned?

The Geneva Convention specifically does not apply to personnel that have no command structure and wear no uniforms blend back into the community before/after an attack.

To call Crazyhorse / Crazy is redundant... the ignore button is so much easier...

There is no mention of uniforms in the Geneva Conventions. Please stop saying there is. It makes you seem like someone who get his news from Fox.

Also, please note that both Al Qaida and Iraqi insurgents have a command structure and carry weapons openly. Also, try to understand that the Conventions protect civilians. If a civilian gets angry and blasts away at a tank, for instance, he still cannot be tortured. There is no circumstance under which anyone can be tortured. The Conventions were meant to be air tight; even if he a man, as a terrorist, commits a murder, he must first be tried before he can be executed.

No unclassified detainee can ever be tortured. We have tortured thousands of people, each of them illegally.