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.
I see and using your logic, the next people we capture on a battlefield we will deem them, Galactic illegal alien combatants" which are not subject to the Geneva conventions.
Talk about a way to subvert the law, just define your prisoners by a previously undefined made up word. Nice.
The Geneva Convention dictates who is covered, and if you think terrorists are protected, then you wont mind telling me when they radified the Geneva Convention and when they followed the "Laws of War".. You know, the actual laws that those at war MUST follow in order to be protected...
People captured "on the battlefield" are following the "Laws of War" they are protected, terrorists were not...
The fact that you cant tell the difference between terrorists and those "on the battlefield" is astounding..
The Geneva Convention dictates who is covered, and if you think terrorists are protected, then you wont mind telling me when they radified the Geneva Convention and when they followed the "Laws of War".. You know, the actual laws that those at war MUST follow in order to be protected...
People captured "on the battlefield" are following the "Laws of War" they are protected, terrorists were not...
The fact that you cant tell the difference between terrorists and those "on the battlefield" is astounding..
The fact that you think everyone at Gitmo was pulled off the battlefield and is a terrorist is astounding.
What of the 17 Chinese Muslim Uighurs that The Bush administration has acknowledged that it no longer considers the Uighurs “enemy combatants” subject to detention?
After the Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006 that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remain. Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.
There have been three convictions total.
This is what happens when you willy nilly pluck people out of the country or take the world of a rival war lord wanting to rid himself of his competition.
Back to the topic which is...
DOJ Lawyers Agreed on Legality of Harsh Interrogations
And they can agree all they want, meanwhile they await a ruling to see whether or not they deliberately omitted prior precedence in order to subvert the law.
Just because two lawyers agree gravity doesn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't, it takes a judge to rule gravity non-existent.
Hmmmm. Perhaps this is why the democratic controlled congress is reluctant to release all the information. They know it was deemed legal - but still, as long as the actual documents are kept classified, they can continue their rhetoric regarding "war crimes" and the like.
Oh dear - this will continue to muddy the waters for those who want to politicize the issue, namely obama, dems and libs.
Are you kidding me? This is somehow credible? The whole Bush Administration is corrupt. The entire lot... Bush/Cheney/Rice/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Barney the dog...
A solution would be to leave them on the battlefield.
Speaking of which, the majority we had in custody were not captured by US forces, but rather Warlords from various regions looking for a bounty. Of course there is no conflict of interest there.
The Geneva Convention dictates who is covered, and if you think terrorists are protected, then you wont mind telling me when they radified the Geneva Convention and when they followed the "Laws of War".. You know, the actual laws that those at war MUST follow in order to be protected...
People captured "on the battlefield" are following the "Laws of War" they are protected, terrorists were not...
The fact that you cant tell the difference between terrorists and those "on the battlefield" is astounding..
Semantics, nothing more nothing less. You're a pro at that. Personally I call it being disingenuous (and that's being generous.)
Bush declared war on Al Queda and that essentially defined who the enemy was. That's enough.
Anything after that is nothing more than a group of people who want to do things on their terms, ignoring the GC, and are unable to admit it. You'd get a lot more respect if you just said that, rather than play kid games and attempt to redefine everything so you can continue to advocate breaking laws.
Thankfully we are under an administration now that values law, the GC, and the UN enough to adhere to the standards that we agreed to follow. Putting your style of "thinking" away for good I hope.
I know this means little to you, and I know that you think any brown person picked up in the Middle East is ok to torture, but a great nation doesn't act like that. A great nation sets the bar. What Bush did, and what you continue to do, is allow the Taliban to set the bar and follow that standard. Thanks but no thanks.
The fact that you think everyone at Gitmo was pulled off the battlefield and is a terrorist is astounding.
Not at all what I said..
I'll talk slower..
If SOLDIERS are pulled from the battlefield, they are afforded LEGAL protection in INTERNATIONAL court from "Harsh Interrogations"...
Terrorists are not pulled from the battlefield, they have not ratified the Geneva Convention, they dont follow the "Rules of War" thereby not afforded these legal protections..
Sorry, I didnt make the rules, I didnt break the rules, the only ones who broke their own protection by not following the rules and laws setup are the terrorists..
Semantics, nothing more nothing less. You're a pro at that. Personally I call it being disingenuous (and that's being generous.)
Actually not semantics, accurate, legal, skirting of the law by jumping through legal loopholes which STILL exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCPUNK
Bush declared war on Al Queda and that essentially defined who the enemy was. That's enough.
Enough of what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCPUNK
Anything after that is nothing more than a group of people who want to do things on their terms, ignoring the GC, and are unable to admit it. You'd get a lot more respect if you just said that, rather than play kid games and attempt to redefine everything so you can continue to advocate breaking laws.
So now you think the legal system is full of "kid games"? Tell me when terrorists radified the Geneva Conventions? Tell me when they signed onto the "Rules of War".. They exist for a reason, and the fact that you continue to turn the topic into "me".. shows your inability to even understand that laws are written to limit what individuals can do and you dont just go and make them up as you go along or pretend they say something they dont, if you do, you just end up looking like a fool..
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCPUNK
Thankfully we are under an administration now that values law, the GC, and the UN enough to adhere to the standards that we agreed to follow. Putting your style of "thinking" away for good I hope
Fabulous, so Obama closed the legal loopholes which existed? When?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCPUNK
I know this means little to you, and I know that you think any brown person picked up in the Middle East is ok to torture, but a great nation doesn't act like that. A great nation sets the bar. What Bush did, and what you continue to do, is allow the Taliban to set the bar and follow that standard. Thanks but no thanks.
There we go, bring up the racial attacks again, a sure sign that you've lost the debate..
Bush declared war on Al Queda and that essentially defined who the enemy was. That's enough.
You really need some reflection time.
BUSH declared war on AQ? Are you joking?
Have you forgotten the attacks by AQ throughout the 90's?
Have you forgotten the fatwa (holy war) they declared against the US in the 90's?
Have you forgotten the attack on 9/11?
Your mentality is dangerous, to say the least.
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.
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.
