PDA

View Full Version : Is Bush A War Criminal?


jAZ
07-02-2006, 11:43 AM
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/is_bush_a_war_c.html?promoid=rss_daily_dish

Is Bush A War Criminal?
Andrew Sullivan
01 Jul 2006 05:20 am

That question has troubled me for quite a while. The Hamdan decision certainly suggests that, by ignoring the Geneva Conventions even in Guantanamo (let alone in Iraq), a war crime has been committed. And in the military, the command structure insists that superiors are held accountable. I've been saying this for a long time now, and have watched aghast as the Bush administration has essentially dumped responsibility for war-crimes on the grunts at Abu Ghraib. The evidence already available proves that the president himself ordered torture and abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions. Now he has been shown to be required to act within the law, and according to the Constitution, his liability for war crimes therefore comes into focus. Money quote from a useful Cato Institute Hamdan summary:

Both the majority and concurrence cite 18 U.S.C. § 2241, which Justice Kennedy stresses makes violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention a war crime punishable as a federal offense, enforceable in federal civil court. The majority holds, of course, that trying persons under the president's military commission order violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, suggesting that trial is a war crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2241.

Furthermore, the majority stresses that the Geneva Conventions 'do extend liability for substantive war crimes to those who "orde[r]' their commission" and "this Court has read the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 to impose ‘command responsibility' on military commanders for acts of their subordinates." The Court’s emphasis on the liability that attaches to "orders" is significant, because trials in the military commissions are, of course, pursuant to a direct presidential order. Even so, it's difficult to imagine a circumstances in which charges under Section 2241 might actually be prosecuted.

Difficult but not impossible.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 01:28 PM
Andrew Sullivan should be ashamed of himself and jAZ for advancing this thought. It's ridiculous. Get a grip, people. There is a world of difference between good faith attempts to prosecute a war as aggressively as possible within a given (but in many ways unknowable in advance) set of constraints and so-called war crimes involving wholesale slaughter of innocents and the like. Andrew doesn't attempt to make any kind of distinction. Indeed, he makes no comment about how insignificant the harm done by anything ruled improper in this decision turns out to be.

I don't think we should accuse our own government of committing war crimes in anything other than the most egregious circumstances imaginable and I don't think we should ever allow our soldiers and government officials to be tried for war crimes in international courts. We should discipline our own with our own law.

banyon
07-02-2006, 01:40 PM
Andrew Sullivan should be ashamed of himself and jAZ for advancing this thought.

I'm not for shaming people for advancing thoughts. It's not exactly like Sullivan is setting up a tribunal yet.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 02:34 PM
I'm not for shaming people for advancing thoughts. It's not exactly like Sullivan is setting up a tribunal yet.

That sounds noble, but I have to believe that Ann Coulter could come up with some thoughts that you'd condemn. And what about slanderous and/or racist thoughts? Do you think people should be ashamed of advancing those types of thoughts?

Mr. Laz
07-02-2006, 02:55 PM
war criminal is a bit of a stretch



dumb assed retart = yes

war criminal = doubtful

memyselfI
07-02-2006, 03:12 PM
Andew Sullivan was once part of the BUSHco crowd. I don't think he'd be making this argument lightly. I'm not surprised to see him make it though. He's looking at the literal interpretations of the laws and saying DUHbya's actions violate those laws as he's interpreting them. You can agree or disagree with him but I don't think he's coming at this from a Hatah point of view. The fact that he was once a Bushie makes me think he might be on to something.

I think if it ever does come to pass that DUHbya is investigated for war crimes the case will hinge on whether or not he INTENDED to violate international and national law in the creation of his polices and whether he willingly proceeded knowing his actions would violate such laws. I'm pretty sure the WH has covered their basis so that even if they did know and chose to do it they haven't left a paper trail to prove it.

jAZ
07-02-2006, 04:19 PM
I don't think we should accuse our own government of committing war crimes in anything other than the most egregious circumstances imaginable...
Keep in mind that while these estimates suggest that 90-95% of the current Gitmo detainees aren't "real" cases... we've released hundreds and hundreds of detainees after years of imprisonment and torture after we determined those weren't "real" cases either.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060701/wl_afp/usattacksguantanamo_060701002205

Guantanamo may have 30-40 'real' cases: OSCE inspector Fri Jun 30, 10:30 PM ET

The Guantanamo camp may have only 30 to 40 "real" cases and the US detention center should be shut down by 2007, the president of the Belgian Senate, who headed a European inspection team there, said.

Presenting her findings in Washington on behalf of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Anne-Marie Lizi recommended the shutting down of the US "war on terror" detention center by end of 2007 because the actual number of dangerous detainees was low.

"We have looked at all the categories of detainees: those who are supposed to be transferred, those who are valuable for procedure," Lizi told reporters.

"The number of those, when you discuss it with the people in this jail, could move from 70 to a little more than 100 but not more. And in some cases, people say we could have only 30 to 40 real valuable cases," she said.

Her report says Guantanamo now has some 460 detainees.

The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling Thursday against the US use of military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees, but the verdict did not touch the detention center's future.

The ruling has forced the US administration to rethink its strategy for the "war on terror" tribunals.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 06:25 PM
I think if it ever does come to pass that DUHbya is investigated for war crimes the case will hinge on whether or not he INTENDED to violate international and national law in the creation of his polices and whether he willingly proceeded knowing his actions would violate such laws. I'm pretty sure the WH has covered their basis so that even if they did know and chose to do it they haven't left a paper trail to prove it.

I was almost ready to say something positive about your take and then I got to the last sentence where you basically say that Bush is guilty regardless of whether there is ever any evidence to prove it. Disappointing. :shake:

patteeu
07-02-2006, 06:27 PM
Keep in mind that while these estimates suggest that 90-95% of the current Gitmo detainees aren't "real" cases... we've released hundreds and hundreds of detainees after years of imprisonment and torture after we determined those weren't "real" cases either.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060701/wl_afp/usattacksguantanamo_060701002205

Guantanamo may have 30-40 'real' cases: OSCE inspector Fri Jun 30, 10:30 PM ET

The Guantanamo camp may have only 30 to 40 "real" cases and the US detention center should be shut down by 2007, the president of the Belgian Senate, who headed a European inspection team there, said.

Presenting her findings in Washington on behalf of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Anne-Marie Lizi recommended the shutting down of the US "war on terror" detention center by end of 2007 because the actual number of dangerous detainees was low.

"We have looked at all the categories of detainees: those who are supposed to be transferred, those who are valuable for procedure," Lizi told reporters.

"The number of those, when you discuss it with the people in this jail, could move from 70 to a little more than 100 but not more. And in some cases, people say we could have only 30 to 40 real valuable cases," she said.

Her report says Guantanamo now has some 460 detainees.

The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling Thursday against the US use of military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees, but the verdict did not touch the detention center's future.

The ruling has forced the US administration to rethink its strategy for the "war on terror" tribunals.

What proof do you have of "torture" taking place at Gitmo, or are you just talking about things like pretty women batting their eyes at detainees during an interrogation?

Cochise
07-02-2006, 07:25 PM
What proof do you have of "torture" taking place at Gitmo, or are you just talking about things like pretty women batting their eyes at detainees during an interrogation?

I hear they don't get night lights or warm milk before bed.

jettio
07-02-2006, 07:35 PM
It should not be hard to prove that someone that you are spending so much money on to deprive of their freedom, has actually done something to earn that punishment.

Whatever reason they have for holding someone ought to be grounds for the charges brought against them.

Not that complicated really. Only people with no honor, courage or brains think you have to cheat to win.

jAZ
07-02-2006, 07:38 PM
What proof do you have of "torture" taking place at Gitmo, or are you just talking about things like pretty women batting their eyes at detainees during an interrogation?
Yeah, I know. You don't like it when people call it torture. Get over it.

jAZ
07-02-2006, 08:16 PM
Yeah, I know. You don't like it when people call it torture. Get over it.
In any case, you and the rest of the Republican toture deniers are going to have to sit the folks down at the DoD and get them in line with the GOP talking points.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18769prs20041220.html

Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."

The document also says that no "intelligence of a threat neutralization nature" was garnered by the "FBI" interrogation, and that the FBI's Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) believes that the Defense Department's actions have destroyed any chance of prosecuting the detainee. The e-mail's author writes that he or she is documenting the incident "in order to protect the FBI."

Nightwish
07-02-2006, 08:25 PM
I don't think we should accuse our own government of committing war crimes in anything other than the most egregious circumstances imaginable and I don't think we should ever allow our soldiers and government officials to be tried for war crimes in international courts. We should discipline our own with our own law.
I would say that our government should be held to the same standards to which it holds other nations. If our government holds other nations accountable for war crimes to the letter of the law, then ours should be as well. And if our nation participates in trying war criminals of other nations in an international court, then our nation should be subject to exactly the same.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 08:34 PM
In any case, you and the rest of the Republican toture deniers are going to have to sit the folks down at the DoD and get them in line with the GOP talking points.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18769prs20041220.html

Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."

The document also says that no "intelligence of a threat neutralization nature" was garnered by the "FBI" interrogation, and that the FBI's Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) believes that the Defense Department's actions have destroyed any chance of prosecuting the detainee. The e-mail's author writes that he or she is documenting the incident "in order to protect the FBI."


It looks like those are supposed to be FBI emails talking about DoD interrogations which leaves some question about their accuracy. But even if they are true, I see nothing wrong with the techniques described as long as they were appropriately authorized.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 08:42 PM
I would say that our government should be held to the same standards to which it holds other nations. If our government holds other nations accountable for war crimes to the letter of the law, then ours should be as well. And if our nation participates in trying war criminals of other nations in an international court, then our nation should be subject to exactly the same.

Those are the words of someone who is globalist-first, American-second (or third or fourth...).

To me, the interests of the US trump any pretense of fairness in what is really a might-makes-right world. Of course, the US has some interest in maintaining the pretense of fairness, but that interest isn't preeminant over all other interests.

Nightwish
07-02-2006, 08:45 PM
Those are the words of someone who is globalist-first, American-second (or third or fourth...).My opinion has nothing to do with globalism, and everything to do with respect, dignity and integrity. If we are too proud to hold ourselves to the same standards to which we hold others, then we are deserving of none of those things.

Now, I have nothing against nationalism and national pride. In fact, I'm as proud as anyone else to be an American. But what I see going on nowadays among many people is something that has gone far beyond national pride and landed squarely in the realm of prideful arrogance. And the arrogance we're often showing the rest of the world is so wrong on so many levels. Your post above is just one example of that arrogance that is cheapening the value of American pride. An even better example is from Stevie Ray's posts a few days ago wherein he basically came out and said that American automakers shouldn't have to step up and improve the quality of their product to stay competitive, that they should command the market simply because they're American. Attitudes like that almost make it shameful to be an American.

alanm
07-02-2006, 10:21 PM
I hear they don't get night lights or warm milk before bed.
But.. but.. the chicken kiev is to die for. :thumb:

jAZ
07-02-2006, 10:24 PM
It looks like those are supposed to be FBI emails talking about DoD interrogations which leaves some question about their accuracy. But even if they are true, I see nothing wrong with the techniques described as long as they were appropriately authorized.
Well, can we at least stop with the BS Republican talking points that this is anything other than torture, and you just admit that you support violating the Geneva Convention and using torture.

jAZ
07-02-2006, 10:25 PM
Those are the words of someone who is globalist-first, American-second (or third or fourth...).

To me, the interests of the US trump any pretense of fairness in what is really a might-makes-right world. Of course, the US has some interest in maintaining the pretense of fairness, but that interest isn't preeminant over all other interests.
It's called morality. Republicans don't own the trademark on the term.

Logical
07-02-2006, 11:06 PM
war criminal is a bit of a stretch



dumb assed retart = yes

war criminal = doubtful:thumb: Exactly

Logical
07-02-2006, 11:16 PM
Those are the words of someone who is globalist-first, American-second (or third or fourth...).

To me, the interests of the US trump any pretense of fairness in what is really a might-makes-right world. Of course, the US has some interest in maintaining the pretense of fairness, but that interest isn't preeminant over all other interests.As to fairness I agree with you, however we need to remain true to the ideals of a moral code. That is where I feel the Bush administration has failed and continues to fail us as a nation. We cannot hold the beacon of rights high if we are suspending and turning a blind eye to those rights ourselves. This is why I am ashamed of our administration even if I don't believe they have quite reached the stage of committing war crimes.

stevieray
07-02-2006, 11:22 PM
My opinion has nothing to do with globalism, and everything to do with respect, dignity and integrity. If we are too proud to hold ourselves to the same standards to which we hold others, then we are deserving of none of those things.

Now, I have nothing against nationalism and national pride. In fact, I'm as proud as anyone else to be an American. But what I see going on nowadays among many people is something that has gone far beyond national pride and landed squarely in the realm of prideful arrogance. And the arrogance we're often showing the rest of the world is so wrong on so many levels. Your post above is just one example of that arrogance that is cheapening the value of American pride. An even better example is from Stevie Ray's posts a few days ago wherein he basically came out and said that American automakers shouldn't have to step up and improve the quality of their product to stay competitive, that they should command the market simply because they're American. Attitudes like that almost make it shameful to be an American.


dude, seek help.

Nightwish
07-02-2006, 11:35 PM
dude, seek help.Dude, I'm not the one who said the US should lead the market just because we're American, and that we shouldn't have to stop producing crap quality merchandise to do it. That was you. And if you don't like having your attitude pointed out as one of the things that is shaming America, that's your problem.

stevieray
07-03-2006, 01:21 AM
Dude, I'm not the one who said the US should lead the market just because we're American, and that we shouldn't have to stop producing crap quality merchandise to do it. That was you. And if you don't like having your attitude pointed out as one of the things that is shaming America, that's your problem.

ROFL

I'll carry your shame for you.

Eskimo Joe
07-03-2006, 02:11 AM
war criminal is a bit of a stretch



dumb assed retart = yes

war criminal = doubtful

For all that believe this you should be so successful.

Let me see, a politician that has the other camp calling him a retart?

I would think that their time could be spent on something more productive to use during the next election.

Nightwish
07-03-2006, 02:34 AM
ROFL

I'll carry your shame for you.
Forgive me, I forgot I was dealing with (in your own mind) the most persecuted person on this board.

patteeu
07-03-2006, 06:44 AM
Well, can we at least stop with the BS Republican talking points that this is anything other than torture, and you just admit that you support violating the Geneva Convention and using torture.

We shouldn't be a party to the GC if they apply to al Qaeda detainees. I support guaranteeing al Qaeda detainees a minimal level of humane treatment except in the most extreme circumstances but not the heightened level of humane treatment defined in the GC which I think should be reserved for individuals from signatory states. I don't agree to call things like sleep deprivation and guard dog intimidation torture whether they are allowed by the GC or not.

You've become a lot more like memyselfi, jAZ. Maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you are giddy at any news/spin that you think casts the US in a bad light these days. Congratulations, you've come a long way, baby.

stevieray
07-03-2006, 10:06 AM
Forgive me, I forgot I was dealing with (in your own mind) the most persecuted person on this board.

Seriously, it's ok nightwish, I can handle your shame. You seem to be carrying a lot around.

Pile it on.

Nightwish
07-03-2006, 10:56 AM
Seriously, it's ok nightwish, I can handle your shame. You seem to be carrying a lot around.

Pile it on.My only shame is the guilt by association with people like yourself who think that you are inherently better than other people simply because you are American. It's true that you have it better than many people, but don't confuse that with being better than them. This is a point you don't seem to grasp.

jAZ
07-03-2006, 11:31 AM
We shouldn't be a party to the GC if they apply to al Qaeda detainees.
Unless Bush has taken to releasing hundreds upon hundreds of al Queda terrorists from Cuba, and unless the estimates of 30-40 real cases among the 450 (left after Bush's latest round of releases) is way off the mark... 75-95% of all the people detained in Cuba were NOT AQ terrorists. If that's the case, then you'll probably need to revise your position.
I don't agree to call things like sleep deprivation and guard dog intimidation torture whether they are allowed by the GC or not.
Well, your dispute is with the folks who are implementing the torture, since they seem to willingly use the term, no matter how un-PC it is for a Republican to say so.

stevieray
07-03-2006, 11:31 AM
My only shame is the guilt by association with people like yourself who think that you are inherently better than other people simply because you are American. It's true that you have it better than many people, but don't confuse that with being better than them. This is a point you don't seem to grasp.

oh the irony, read this to yourself in regarding your own prejudices against Israel.

you know, if you want, you can put your prideful arrogance on me too.

jAZ
07-03-2006, 11:36 AM
You've become a lot more like memyselfi, jAZ. Maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you are giddy at any news/spin that you think casts the US in a bad light these days. Congratulations, you've come a long way, baby.
You are deliberately mis-reading me (and denise as well, I suspect if she's anything like me). I've been behaving the same way for 5 years. I've been saying the same things in the same way at the same time for 5 years. The only thing that's changed is that I'm no longer acting alone and with little more than my instincts and limited available evidence... Today, most public opinion and available evidence supports my long standing positions on almost every issue I've raised in the last 5 years.

Any hint of "giddy" is a bit of the old "F*ck you" to all of the folks who did their very best to humiliate me into shutting up by questioning my patriotism, my love for my military serving family members, my support for the rest of the soldiers (who are just people doing what they are told by the political leaders they are obligated to follow).

I remain very proud of what I believe this nation to be and I remain very proud of the very best of what we stand for. I do not equate the greatness of our nation with the actions of the temporary leadership that this nation has right now. The people who have taken control of the reigns of power in this country over the last 6 years have done little but take one act after another that embarrasses and in some cases nearly destroys parts of this country.

I am simultaneously ashamed of them and proud of what my country has been before and will be again. Trust me, there is no "giddy" about my feelings toward the behavior of this temporary political leadership nor the outcomes of that behavior.

It's rather easy and politically beneficial to conflate the 2000-2006 Republican members of Congress and the Bush Administration with "our country", but they are not the same thing. Not even close.

Our country is much greater than the select few temporary political leaders that you are so dedicated to serving. It's a disgrace for you (or anyone) to seek out ways to belittle our nation by trying to make it synonymous with your beloved President and his actions (or any one person or group). And to do this so that you can hope to make a stronger case to politically support this group is beyond disgraceful.

Nightwish
07-03-2006, 11:45 AM
oh the irony, read this to yourself in regarding your own prejudices against Israel.My prejudices against Israel have nothing to do with its people. Criticizing a nation's political antics and criticizing our own nation's unwillingness to let Israel stand on their own, in no way implies anything about the quality of the Israeli people. That's a baseless charge that you keep making out of your deep need to use the victim card. I'm sure you'd find a way of calling me a Christian-hater, too, except that Israel is primarily a Jewish state. I'm sure you're fuming that you can't play the anti-Christian angle yet, as that's one you're especially fond of. Anything that will make you somehow look like a victim gives you some sense of validation, right? Do you just play it for pity?

Some of your opinions, to be frank, are so far outside the realm of normal national pride, that they're just plain bizarre! To think that American automakers shouldn't have to step up their quality when the market moves ahead of them, that the average American should buy American, no matter how poor the quality when they could buy something better, and that the market should dumb itself down to keep the US on top, rather than the US having to actually work to keep its place in the market? What the heck is that about? That's just stupidity!you know, if you want, you can put your prideful arrogance on me too.Oh, where have I been pridefully arrogant? Where have I said, "We're better than everyone else! Our country is stronger than any other, therefore our people are better people than any others, and our products are better products than any others?" That is prideful arrogance, and we've seen in spades from both you and patteeu. Where have you seen it from me? You're confusing indignation with arrogance.

patteeu
07-03-2006, 01:14 PM
Unless Bush has taken to releasing hundreds upon hundreds of al Queda terrorists from Cuba, and unless the estimates of 30-40 real cases among the 450 (left after Bush's latest round of releases) is way off the mark... 75-95% of all the people detained in Cuba were NOT AQ terrorists. If that's the case, then you'll probably need to revise your position.

1) Just because there have been people released from Gitmo does not mean that those people were not illegal enemy combatants. The fact that several of those released have been recaptured or killed on subsequent battlefields is pretty strong evidence of this. There may have been some cases of wrong-place/wrong-time or mistaken-identity at first, but I'm confident that the remainder are appropriately detained. I think your estimates of 30-40 "real cases" is wishful thinking from those who oppose Gitmo altogether.

Well, your dispute is with the folks who are implementing the torture, since they seem to willingly use the term, no matter how un-PC it is for a Republican to say so.

Oh really? You rub elbows with these torturers? Where?

patteeu
07-03-2006, 01:25 PM
You are deliberately mis-reading me (and denise as well, I suspect if she's anything like me). I've been behaving the same way for 5 years. I've been saying the same things in the same way at the same time for 5 years. The only thing that's changed is that I'm no longer acting alone and with little more than my instincts and limited available evidence... Today, most public opinion and available evidence supports my long standing positions on almost every issue I've raised in the last 5 years.

Any hint of "giddy" is a bit of the old "F*ck you" to all of the folks who did their very best to humiliate me into shutting up by questioning my patriotism, my love for my military serving family members, my support for the rest of the soldiers (who are just people doing what they are told by the political leaders they are obligated to follow).

I remain very proud of what I believe this nation to be and I remain very proud of the very best of what we stand for. I do not equate the greatness of our nation with the actions of the temporary leadership that this nation has right now. The people who have taken control of the reigns of power in this country over the last 6 years have done little but take one act after another that embarrasses and in some cases nearly destroys parts of this country.

I am simultaneously ashamed of them and proud of what my country has been before and will be again. Trust me, there is no "giddy" about my feelings toward the behavior of this temporary political leadership nor the outcomes of that behavior.

It's rather easy and politically beneficial to conflate the 2000-2006 Republican members of Congress and the Bush Administration with "our country", but they are not the same thing. Not even close.

Our country is much greater than the select few temporary political leaders that you are so dedicated to serving. It's a disgrace for you (or anyone) to seek out ways to belittle our nation by trying to make it synonymous with your beloved President and his actions (or any one person or group). And to do this so that you can hope to make a stronger case to politically support this group is beyond disgraceful.

You've got Bush for the next couple of years and you'll probably have to deal with the Republican Congress just as long. Get over it. You can either pull for our country during that time or you can hope for Bush failures so "your country" can get back in office again. You used to seem like more of a "pull for our country" guy but not so much anymore.

Nightwish
07-03-2006, 01:28 PM
1) Just because there have been people released from Gitmo does not mean that those people were not illegal enemy combatants. The fact that several of those released have been recaptured or killed on subsequent battlefields is pretty strong evidence of this. There may have been some cases of wrong-place/wrong-time or mistaken-identity at first, but I'm confident that the remainder are appropriately detained. I think your estimates of 30-40 "real cases" is wishful thinking from those who oppose Gitmo altogether.
You said that we shouldn't be party to the GC if it is meant to apply to AQ terrorists. I'm sure you recognize the difference between an Al Qaeda terrorist and an "enemy combatant." Gitmo ostensibly contains both. While I agree that it is almost reprehensible to require that the terms of the GC apply to Al Qaeda terrorists, I think it should apply to those "enemy combatants" who are not necessarily terrorists or members of Al Qaeda. This alarmist tendency among some of you to lump everybody who is opposing us into one category and advocating that none of them, regardless of the tactics they used or the affiliations they are found to have, should be afforded the basic human rights granted by the Geneva Convention, is just plain irresponsible. It's the same mindset that led to Japanese-Americans being herded into detainment centers during WWII.

jAZ
07-03-2006, 01:30 PM
You can either pull for our country during that time or you can hope for Bush failures ....
More of the same...

:shake:

stevieray
07-03-2006, 01:53 PM
My prejudices against Israel have nothing to do with its people. Criticizing a nation's political antics and criticizing our own nation's unwillingness to let Israel stand on their own, in no way implies anything about the quality of the Israeli people. That's a baseless charge that you keep making out of your deep need to use the victim card. I'm sure you'd find a way of calling me a Christian-hater, too, except that Israel is primarily a Jewish state. I'm sure you're fuming that you can't play the anti-Christian angle yet, as that's one you're especially fond of. Anything that will make you somehow look like a victim gives you some sense of validation, right? Do you just play it for pity?

Some of your opinions, to be frank, are so far outside the realm of normal national pride, that they're just plain bizarre! To think that American automakers shouldn't have to step up their quality when the market moves ahead of them, that the average American should buy American, no matter how poor the quality when they could buy something better, and that the market should dumb itself down to keep the US on top, rather than the US having to actually work to keep its place in the market? What the heck is that about? That's just stupidity!Oh, where have I been pridefully arrogant? Where have I said, "We're better than everyone else! Our country is stronger than any other, therefore our people are better people than any others, and our products are better products than any others?" That is prideful arrogance, and we've seen in spades from both you and patteeu. Where have you seen it from me? You're confusing indignation with arrogance.

I'll repsond to this later, there is too much to debate, and I don't have the time right now.

SBK
07-03-2006, 02:58 PM
This thread reminds me of someone saying Cheney was going to be executed for the "leak" of the "undercover" CIA agent.

It's pretty gross how bad the bad for America good for dems crap has come.

DanT
07-03-2006, 02:58 PM
If in fact the American military practiced torture on al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan, then war crimes were committed, according to the law of the United States (i.p. 18 USC 2441) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/118/sections/section_2441.html):

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20060630.html

The Applicability of the Geneva Conventions


The Court (including Justice Kennedy on this point) found the Geneva Convention's requirement that enemy detainees be tried, if at all, by tribunals equivalent to civilian courts or regular courts martial, applicable to alleged al Qaeda members. Although not directly relevant to the Hamdan case itself, that determination may have grave collateral consequences for military and CIA personnel who have used extreme methods of interrogation on captives.


Common Article 3 also requires that detainees "shall in all cases be treated humanely." This provision certainly bans torture and equally certainly bans the forms of interrogation--such as "waterboarding," which simulates the experience of drowning--that the Administration is widely believed to have authorized, under the supposition that the Geneva Conventions do not apply.


As Justice Kennedy stated straightforwardly, yet ominously for the Administration: "By Act of Congress . . . violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel," and "there should be no doubt . . . that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in" the UCMJ.

DanT
07-03-2006, 03:06 PM
Here's Article 3 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:

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


Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

DanT
07-03-2006, 03:11 PM
Here's more from the Geneva Convention.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

PART II

GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Article 15

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Article 16

Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.

DanT
07-03-2006, 03:15 PM
Finally, here's the Geneva Convention's definition of a "grave breach", which is important because the United States law says that grave breaches are war crimes:

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

Article 129

The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the present Convention.

Article 130

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.

patteeu
07-03-2006, 04:05 PM
You said that we shouldn't be party to the GC if it is meant to apply to AQ terrorists. I'm sure you recognize the difference between an Al Qaeda terrorist and an "enemy combatant." Gitmo ostensibly contains both. While I agree that it is almost reprehensible to require that the terms of the GC apply to Al Qaeda terrorists, I think it should apply to those "enemy combatants" who are not necessarily terrorists or members of Al Qaeda.

al Qaeda terrorists are one subset of enemy combatant although in this context, the enemy combatants I'm concerned with are those on the other side in our GWoT. I don't think we should be party to any treaty that grants favorable treatment to any enemy combatants (as the Bush administration uses the term).

This alarmist tendency among some of you to lump everybody who is opposing us into one category and advocating that none of them, regardless of the tactics they used or the affiliations they are found to have, should be afforded the basic human rights granted by the Geneva Convention, is just plain irresponsible. It's the same mindset that led to Japanese-Americans being herded into detainment centers during WWII.

No one is doing that here so you can rest easy.

jAZ
07-03-2006, 04:38 PM
No one is ["lump(ing) everybody who is opposing us into one category"] here so you can rest easy.
...the enemy combatants I'm concerned with are those on the other side in our GWoT.

patteeu
07-03-2006, 04:48 PM
Your logic is wrong, jAZ. We have had several different enemies in our GWoT. Not all of them have been "enemy combatants." Some have been legitimate soldiers (Saddam's soldiers, for example). I was focusing on the subset that are enemy combatants and I'm focusing on the subset of all potential enemy combatants with whom we are fighting in the GWoT.

None of this means I'm lumping everyone into the same category as Nightwish described. As you can see, I recognize at least two relevant categories: enemy combatants and legitmate POWs.

go bowe
07-03-2006, 05:39 PM
Your logic is wrong, jAZ. We have had several different enemies in our GWoT. Not all of them have been "enemy combatants." Some have been legitimate soldiers (Saddam's soldiers, for example). I was focusing on the subset that are enemy combatants and I'm focusing on the subset of all potential enemy combatants with whom we are fighting in the GWoT.

None of this means I'm lumping everyone into the same category as Nightwish described. As you can see, I recognize at least two relevant categories: enemy combatants and legitmate POWs.are enemy combatants a category under the gc's?

i don't recall any such classification...

the gc's generally cover uniformed soldiers of a nation, signatory or not, so long as we are a signatory nation...

common article three appears to cover combatants (actually detainees) who are not part of the armed forces of a nation (thus, the wot is not an international war, even though it is being fought in like 60 countries and is clearly international in that sense)...

we'd need a new gc category for enemy combatants, but it's hard to realistically imagine that most of the countries who are a part of the geneva conventions would agree to less than the current minimum standards of treatment and regularity of punishment, if you will (referring to regularly constituted courts or courts martial as tribunals)...

yes, yes, i know...

"realistically imagine" is an oxycodone...

Joe Seahawk
07-03-2006, 05:57 PM
Is Bush A War Criminal?


no

jAZ
07-03-2006, 06:06 PM
Your logic is wrong, jAZ. We have had several different enemies in our GWoT. Not all of them have been "enemy combatants." Some have been legitimate soldiers (Saddam's soldiers, for example). I was focusing on the subset that are enemy combatants and I'm focusing on the subset of all potential enemy combatants with whom we are fighting in the GWoT.

None of this means I'm lumping everyone into the same category as Nightwish described. As you can see, I recognize at least two relevant categories: enemy combatants and legitmate POWs.
I'll take your word for it that you didn't mean it that way... because I really hate it when I clarify a point and people here ignore my direct clarification.

mikey23545
07-03-2006, 07:01 PM
Is Bush A War Criminal?



Oh, for crying out loud...

jettio
07-03-2006, 08:19 PM
B*sh can not be liable as a war criminal for any acts committed after the Mission Accomplished speech. That was the offical end of the war, beginning of the $400 billion dollar collossal cluster*ck of impossible incompetence and stoopidity.

Hard to believe that some fools still support the lying incompetent sack of dishonorable Raiduhs .

Eskimo Joe
07-04-2006, 01:38 AM
B*sh can not be liable as a war criminal for any acts committed after the Mission Accomplished speech. That was the offical end of the war, beginning of the $400 billion dollar collossal cluster*ck of impossible incompetence and stoopidity.

Hard to believe that some fools still support the lying incompetent sack of dishonorable Raiduhs .

Why don't you tell us how you really feel you dispicable sack of shit ?

Cochise
07-04-2006, 05:17 AM
Why don't you tell us how you really feel you dispicable sack of shit ?

Welcome back t**c***, I have to admit it you stayed away longer than I thought possible this time. ROFL

Eskimo Joe
07-04-2006, 05:52 AM
Welcome back t**c***, I have to admit it you stayed away longer than I thought possible this time. ROFL

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I must have the same opinion as your friend.

Love the president or hate the president, civilized people do not talk like that about the leader of the nation.

the Talking Can
07-04-2006, 06:51 AM
Welcome back t**c***, I have to admit it you stayed away longer than I thought possible this time. ROFL

ROFL ...man, he has a smell you just can't hide...

jAZ
07-04-2006, 09:51 AM
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I must have the same opinion as your friend.

Love the president or hate the president, civilized people do not talk like that about the leader of the nation.
ROFL

patteeu
07-04-2006, 10:14 AM
are enemy combatants a category under the gc's?

I don't think so, which is the point of having such a category. As I said earlier, my position is that if the GC does bind us even when we are fighting those who aren't similarly bound, we should get out of it and negotiate a new treaty that works that way. I'm all for agreeing to gentlemanly warfare with other countries who reciprocate, but I'm not in favor of unilaterally observing fancy boxing rules when fighting streetfighters.

patteeu
07-04-2006, 10:16 AM
I'll take your word for it that you didn't mean it that way... because I really hate it when I clarify a point and people here ignore my direct clarification.

The way I said it was perfectly consistent with my "clarification" and inconsistent with your original conclusion. IOW, I did mean to say it that way.

go bowe
07-04-2006, 11:44 AM
I don't think so, which is the point of having such a category. As I said earlier, my position is that if the GC does bind us even when we are fighting those who aren't similarly bound, we should get out of it and negotiate a new treaty that works that way. I'm all for agreeing to gentlemanly warfare with other countries who reciprocate, but I'm not in favor of unilaterally observing fancy boxing rules when fighting streetfighters.under the conventions, those fancy boxing rules apply to detainees, not people who are actively fighting...

and under the conventions, those fancy boxing rules include the minimum legal protections afforded by "civilized nations" (presumably the ones who have signed the treaties)...

i would oppose going below minimum legal standards (not pow status though), regardless of the tactics of the enemy...

on the other hand, even though the practice of rendition appears to be a violation of the conventions too, i'm a big fan of rendition to countries like saudi arabia and egypt and other places sure to be hospitable to terrorists trying to bring down their regimes...

patteeu
07-04-2006, 01:03 PM
under the conventions, those fancy boxing rules apply to detainees, not people who are actively fighting...

and under the conventions, those fancy boxing rules include the minimum legal protections afforded by "civilized nations" (presumably the ones who have signed the treaties)...

i would oppose going below minimum legal standards (not pow status though), regardless of the tactics of the enemy...

on the other hand, even though the practice of rendition appears to be a violation of the conventions too, i'm a big fan of rendition to countries like saudi arabia and egypt and other places sure to be hospitable to terrorists trying to bring down their regimes...

By "fighting" I meant the entire scope of the conflict including how detainees are treated.

Bwana
07-04-2006, 06:56 PM
:shake:

I think I just found Bagdad Bob. Obsess much Jiz?

Lurch
07-04-2006, 08:12 PM
:shake:

I think I just found Bagdad Bob. Obsess much Jiz?

Is jAZ a partisan hack?

He appears to be a Democratic version of that RingLeader dude who was a Republican hack that I've seen in the archives....before my time.

Bwana
07-04-2006, 08:41 PM
Is jAZ a partisan hack?

He appears to be a Democratic version of that RingLeader dude who was a Republican hack that I've seen in the archives....before my time.

Yep, jiz is to Dems as Ring was to Reps. Far left and far right.

banyon
07-04-2006, 09:04 PM
Yep, jiz is to Dems as Ring was to Reps. Far left and far right.

jAZ is not as far left as some people in DC. He is just passionate about what he believes.

Lurch
07-04-2006, 09:36 PM
jAZ is not as far left as some people in DC. He is just passionate about what he believes.
Passionate partisan. That's the only thing passionate about him. Hating Bush and anything the Republicans do. Both parties are full of dochebags. And the biggest douchebags are those who can't see they are mirror images of those they despise. Like jAZ. And RingLeader. And recxjake. And you.

banyon
07-04-2006, 10:09 PM
Passionate partisan. That's the only thing passionate about him. Hating Bush and anything the Republicans do. Both parties are full of dochebags. And the biggest douchebags are those who can't see they are mirror images of those they despise. Like jAZ. And RingLeader. And recxjake. And you.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

Way to celebrate our 4th of July by berating your fellow Americans' political beliefs.

Lurch
07-04-2006, 10:18 PM
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

Way to celebrate our 4th of July by berating your fellow Americans' political beliefs.

You are nothing more than jAZ-light. Am I supposed to be impressed?

banyon
07-04-2006, 10:31 PM
You are nothing more than jAZ-light. Am I supposed to be impressed?

Put the bottle away, go to sleep, and come back tomorrow with something a little stronger.

Lurch
07-04-2006, 10:48 PM
Put the bottle away, go to sleep, and come back tomorrow with something a little stronger.
I haven't had more than a few sips since 1988. Been in AA ever since. Whatever makes you sleep easier, though.

banyon
07-04-2006, 11:01 PM
I haven't had more than a few sips since 1988. Been in AA ever since. Whatever makes you sleep easier, though.

My only point is that this is a day of celebration, not of hissy-fit slap-fight name-calling. Rejoicing in our political diversity is more appropriate today than disparaging it.

Lurch
07-04-2006, 11:03 PM
My only point is that this is a day of celebration, not of hissy-fit slap-fight name-calling. Rejoicing in our political diversity is more appropriate today than disparaging it.
It's never a good day to condone partisan extremism of the sort you & jAZ seem to demonstrate daily around this place, is my point.

banyon
07-04-2006, 11:21 PM
It's never a good day to condone partisan extremism of the sort you a jAZ seem to demonstrate daily around this place, is my point.

can you give me some examples of my partisan extremism?

maybe you could start with an analysis of this thread:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=143038&page=5&pp=15

go bowe
07-05-2006, 01:03 AM
banyon as extremist...

interesting concept...

totally flawed, but interesting nonetheless...

Lurch
07-05-2006, 12:58 PM
banyon as extremist...

interesting concept...

totally flawed, but interesting nonetheless...

Okay, extemist may be a bit over the top. Partisan ideologue/hack fits nicely though.

banyon
07-05-2006, 03:34 PM
Okay, extemist may be a bit over the top. Partisan ideologue/hack fits nicely though.

Who am I partisan to? I've only voted Dem once in my life.