Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,077,671 times
Reputation: 21738

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
The Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers in uniform, wearing insignia and so forth -not unlawful enemy combatants.


I'd like to see someone get convicted of spitting on the sidewalk by virtue of implicitly admitting to doing so.

If the some spent half as much energy on defending this country as they do on attacking it and its institutions every chance they get the terrorists would've run screaming years ago.
Well, thank you for proving to everyone your total lack of knowledge about the Geneva Conventions and international law.

I will now school you properly so you don't embarrass yourself in the future.

The United States has consistently maintained that habeas corpus does not apply to alien enemy combatants, and that the United States does not exercise sovereignty over U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. However, U.S. federal courts have held in Haitian Ctrs. Council, 823 F. Supp. at 1042, et al, that the two-year confinement of an alien at Guantánamo established substantial connection to the United States to give rise to due process rights.

The United States has additionally argued that the exigencies of the global “war on terror” outweigh all other considerations and that the defense of the nation is of prime importance. It has also adopted the position that terrorists are not only stateless, but that they are persona non-gratis as well, and fall out-side the definitions of all international laws and treaties.

Overall, the approach taken by the United States continues to be nonsensical and unnecessary. As David Sloss pithily notes, it would be in the government’s best interest to classify Taliban detainees as POWs under the 3rd Geneva Convention and al-Qaeda detainees as “protected persons” under the 4th Geneva Convention. The United States could legally maintain the detainees in custody until the “cessation of active hostilities” for the former and the “close of hostilities” for the latter. In both instances, the United States would have tremendous leeway to make the determination as to when hostilities ended.

IV. ANALYSIS

4.1 HAS THE U.S. GRANTED ENEMY COMBATANTS IN THE WAR ON TERROR DETAINED IN CUBA FULL GUARANTEES OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES AND THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?

Torture and inhumane treatment of persons are peremptory norms and as such, cannot be derogated. The United States has failed to treat detainees in accordance with international treaties and customary law. The ban against torture is a customary law ingrained as jus cogens. Under jus cogens, criminal acts are subject to universal jurisdiction, regardless where the criminal act took place, or the nationalities of the perpetrator or victim.

4.2 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CAT.

Articles 1 & 16 specifically prohibit torture and inhumane treatment. Furthermore, it plainly states that, “This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.” Moreover, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

Branch Memoranda on Status and Permissible Treatment of Detainees. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 820-831.
Sloss, David L., Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. 2686, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.
98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 788-798.
CAT art. 5, para.3
Ibid art 2, para. 2

4.3 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE 3RD AND 4TH GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

In the ******** Letter, the United States Attorney General outlined an argument proposing that the detainees be denied the protections of the treaty because Afghanistan was a “failed state.” This argument falls short because neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban were ever on the United States State Department list of Terrorist States, Terrorist-Sponsoring States, Terrorist Organizations or Terrorist Sponsoring Organizations. Furthermore, the United States repeatedly engaged in negotiations through July 1, 2001, with the Taliban on behalf of the UNOCAL Corporation to build the CentGas oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Thus, the United States clearly recognized the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, rather than a “failed state.”

Ashcroft’s second line of reasoning is that Taliban detainees should be denied protections as “unlawful combatants.” This argument fails, because Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention requires that all persons be afforded protections until such time as an evaluation by a competent authority to evaluate each individual detainee’s status. The United States failed to convene a prompt hearing to determine the status of each detainee for more than two years. Of particular importance is the distinction noted between “armed conflict” and “armed violence.” Where terrorism is concerned, humanitarian law does not apply to “armed violence.” However, “armed conflict” automatically invokes the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Another issue involves the definitions of the two types of armed conflicts, international and internal. The conflict in Afghanistan ceased to be an international conflict on December 21, 2001, the day that Hamid Karzai became the leader of the interim government. Since al-Qaeda is not a State, its members are automatically governed by common article 3.

4.4 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ICCPR.

Although ICCPR provides limited derogations from certain rights under the convention, the Special Rapporteur noted that the “United States has not notified any official derogation from ICCPR, as requested under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, or from any other international human rights treaty.” The ICCPR makes no distinction between “armed violence” and “armed conflict.” It is in full force and effect at all times and specifically prohibits the derogation of certain articles regardless of circumstance, including the directive that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

See Official Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) dated 21 July 2005 regarding “The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism” (available at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705?OpenDocument>). Quoted in U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.29.
Sloss, David L., Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. 2686, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.
98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 788-798.
U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.6.
ICCPR art. 4, para. 2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:59 PM
 
7,473 posts, read 3,990,223 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Bush did exactly that (Somewhere between 150,000 and 600,000 depending on whose estimate you believe), and also caused around four million more to be displaced from their homes.

When he finally leaves this world I hope he is greeted by the servicemen he sent to their deaths unnecessarily and that they turn him over to the Iraqis he killed.

Let them decide how he spends eternity.

I am sure they will salute him just as they would have when alive..........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,630,809 times
Reputation: 9975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Ron is wrong. The 1991 cease-fire agreement, which Iraq signed, gave the U.S. authority to resume military action against Iraq if it was broken, which it was.
But it wasn't, even Bush admitted that
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 04:27 PM
 
7,473 posts, read 3,990,223 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamky View Post
I think you are a troll. There were many links on here but you ignore it just as you ignore that an US company signed a major deal for Iraqi oil but it was just Russia and China, right as you mentioned. Do your homework.

Start with: Murat Kurnaz and other innocent people that were tortured.

Or read some links:

Retired Gen. Taguba: Bush Administration Committed "War Crimes" - Political Punch

One from Ron Paul:

We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.

Ron Paul on the War on Terror, the Iraq War and Homeland Security

I read your link...........the very first word as a prelude to the list of "tortures" is ALLEGED.....unless it has changed its meaning,that word means NOT PROVEN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 05:09 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,699,678 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battleneter View Post
Correct, the US invaded Iraq "supposedly" to prevent weapons of Mass destruction.

Subsequent US investigations proved there was nothing of significance and Iraq was not even close, previous inspections had worked and yet strangely US intelligent agencies mistook Milk factories for for uranium enrichment plants lol

The US government knowing the lie had largely been exposed then started to play the American people by saying "We are there for freedom" which mainstream America have been lapping up ever since.

The real reason for the US being in Iraq is regional influence and resource control, in other words to ensure oil stability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamky View Post
Are you talking about that?

[SIZE=2]Some Bush administration officials have argued that because Iraq has not complied with the cease-fire terms of Resolution 687 (a subsequent relevant resolution), which required it to disarm and cooperate with weapons inspectors, among other things, member states still have sufficient legal authority to use force ("all necessary means") against Iraq.

But critics have found flaws in this theory as well. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. This was made clear in a Security Council meeting on Dec. 16, 1998.[/SIZE]
..

International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq

BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal
actually there is a lot wrong in these posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Ron is wrong. The 1991 cease-fire agreement, which Iraq signed, gave the U.S. authority to resume military action against Iraq if it was broken, which it was.
this is correct, along with the fact that both congress AND the UN gave proper authority to invade iraq during the bush administration. and there was a list of 23 reasons why we went into iraq, only two had anything to do with WMDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
He ordered waterboarding which is defined as a torture and a war crime. Also the US had several Japanese leaders executed after WW2 for waterboarding Americans. If we call it a war crime and execute people when it is done to us then it's still a war crime when we do it.
waterboarding was NOT a war crime, and was NOT considered torture until congress made it so in 2007(?). there were many other reasons why japanese leaders were executed, and that was that they had in fact committed many war crimes, not just because they water boarded some US military troops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aspiesmom View Post
Iraq did not commit terrorism on USA, for that matter neither did Afghanistan
that is correct, however iraq constantly thumbed their nose at the UN and their weapons inspectors, and broke the cease fire agreement many times.

and afghanistan was a hot bed for terrorists, and while the taliban did not attack the US, they in fact gave safe harbor to those that did, and refused to turn them over to US authorities for prosecution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,191,241 times
Reputation: 7607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamky View Post
How can be Ron Paul wrong when there is no legal consensus about the legality of the war? Only because Bush and Blair thought it was legal doesn't mean that the war was legal indeed.

Here is a rather long speech of Ron Paul about it. For sure not for people with a short attention span like Fox News viewers but definitely interesting.

Example:

Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.
Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.


Ron Paul's Iraq Speech - Wikisource
Ron Paul does not have the final say!

As for the other countries, they are not Iraq and could be handled in different ways (but the U.N. is too limp-wristed to do so).

Last edited by Fleet; 11-24-2010 at 05:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,212 posts, read 19,446,206 times
Reputation: 21678
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner View Post
I am sure they will salute him just as they would have when alive..........

The one finger salute by all who realized they died way too young....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 06:44 PM
 
170 posts, read 532,094 times
Reputation: 205
Even if Bush DID go over to Iraq and personally cut some civilians heads off and rape a bunch of women..lol

Nothing would happen....there is no world cops or world courts that The United States of America belongs to. We reconize no laws other than ours.

Liberal hippies need to get over Bush, its been two years...and SURPRISE Obama is doing the same exact thing..lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,077,671 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
actually there is a lot wrong in these posts.
Especially in yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
waterboarding was NOT a war crime, and was NOT considered torture until congress made it so in 2007(?).
I would recommend RIF: Reading Is Fundamental.

Apparently you have great difficulty comprehending what you read. The United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

I high-lighted the last part because you don't some to be able to comprehend what those words mean.

Water-boarding is torture.

Your belief, and it is a belief, since an opinion is a fact-based conclusion and you have presented no facts, that water-boarding is not torture is irrelevant.

Interfering with someone's ability to breathe by submerging (or if you want to split hairs since that's really the only thing you have) or partially submerging them in water is torture.

Even if you could somehow prove it wasn't, and it doesn't matter what laws the US Congress enacts, it would still be considered as Cruel or Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

And to that end, water-boarding violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
to which the US is a party.

The US is a party to CAT;
Bush authorized water-boarding;
CAT bars water-boarding;
Bush violated in international treaty:

Ergo Bush is a war-criminal.

There is no statute of limitations, although Bush did have functional immunity as head of state.

He is no longer head of state and subject to prosecution.

Any country who is a party to CAT has the authority to arrest and detain Bush for war crimes, should he enter an area where that country has jurisdiction. The fact that a citizen of that country was not harmed or never in confinement is irrelevant and immaterial. That is International Law 101

To spare yourself further embarrassment, you might want to investigate a few terms relevant to international law:

jus cogens
peremptory norms
customary law

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
that is correct, however iraq constantly thumbed their nose at the UN and their weapons inspectors, and broke the cease fire agreement many times.
Then it is up to the UN Security Council to decide what action to take, not the US.

How many times did the US violate the cease-fire agreement? Well, the US hasn't yet published that information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
and afghanistan was a hot bed for terrorists, and while the taliban did not attack the US, they in fact gave safe harbor to those that did, and refused to turn them over to US authorities for prosecution.
Pakistan also gave safe harbor and is still giving safe harbor, but the US isn't invading Pakistan.

The reason the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan has absolutely nothing to do with "WMD" (snicker -- people are such suckers) or terrorists, but those are convenient excuses.

The real reason has to do with the US geo-strategic plans. Bush couldn't exactly divulge that information because he doesn't know the scope of the US geo-strategic plans, and what little he knew would be classified.

In reality, that information isn't a matter of national security, but it is a matter of national embarrassment and wouldn't sit too well with the international community, most of whom are smart enough to know that the real reason for the invasions is so that you can have a job and lots of cheap stuff to buy and unimpeded access to natural resources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 08:12 PM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,900,300 times
Reputation: 7365
They tried and convicted him too hang. Oh wait that was Sadam.

My best day of that war was the day 'We' busted bagdad Bob.

Anyone recall that?

There he was in front of the camera telling the world the Iranians have the Allies on the run and for all the world it looked like he was in a office. Suddenly trailer doors were yanked open, American Army entered and dragged Bob out in the street, and some how the camera never stopped rolling.

Man did I have a wild howel on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top