Gas Bandit's Political Thread

[Mr_Chaz]

Interestingly I actually agree with most of that. I guess the difference is probably more in what we define as a comfortable life. I don't think the government should be providing a comfortable life, but I think it can get us closer whilst still improving society.

And I liked to define my terms of reference for left-wing just to make sure the US/UK definition is close enough to apply :teeth:

I'm willing to bet that the American definition of "left-wing" is more conservative than the European/British definition. We're a bit more right-leaning on this side of the pond. Could you tell? :teeth:

If you believe the government can "get us closer" to a more comfortable life, the question then becomes how that is accomplished. Since the government doesn't generate income beyond taxation, then by definition you have to take money in the form of taxes from one group of people and distribute it to another group, which is edging up on socialism. Personally, I'm not a big fan of socialism, since in my mind it can stifle innovation and take away incentives to perform. I believe you reap the benefits of your hard work, and take the risk of failure if you conduct business poorly or if a gamble doesn't pay off. As such, I have a MAJOR problem with bailing out Wall Street and giving "tax cuts" to people who didn't pay taxes in the first place, but apparently a lot of people in this country disagree with me, since we've recently elected people in the form of senators, representatives, and even a President who are willing to spend like it's going out of style, even if it means racking up $1.2 TRILLION of debt. :aaahhh:

Not that the current/soon-to-be-previous President was much better.

Well yeah I often would describe myself as a socialist, but I prefer competent socialism to the type you get over there! lol.

 

[JCM]

Mind you, some of the captured were combatants in war, wearing the Taliban uniform, which were light brown Pakistani vests and pants, yellowish green jacket and the pitch-black thick Turban, which in Afghanistan was only used by the Taliban, and was actually their mark of honor, always worn when in battle and when carrying out official duty.

That's not the people who were in question. All the "bush war crimes" nonsense came from Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Well, I could argue on those in Gitmo, but thats not the case put forth against your view, so if the ones were NOT soldiers dressed like soldiers, yes.

Everybody had to put up with 8 years of comparing Bush to Hitler, get ready folks, for 4 to 8 years of comparing Obama to Hitler. And no, this ain't the Ben Stein bit from the convention.

Wow. What a pompous dipshit. Reading that made my brain hurt.

Well, I guss my brain hurt too, because Obama wont need to ask for all that power Bush went after (right to imprison someone withi US soil without any proof/trial/lawyer if one is terrorist suspect/ability to torture people overseas/listening in to conversations/etc).

Because all that power BUsh fought for now is in the hands of Obama. Ironic, really, the republican party ended up giving Obama much more power than the last democratic president, and a senate majority to boot.

 

[Dieb]

As for the Geneva conventions, the whole point of the Geneva convention was to set out the definition that if you are a soldier you MUST wear a uniform, as well as other requirements. By intentionally not wearing uniforms in order to blend in with civilian populations, non-uniformed combatants by definition do not have claim to the rights of protection of uniformed soldiers under the Geneva convention.

To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly.

So much for that argument.

It's good to know you didn't actually read my post. If you had, you would have seen I was refering to Common Article Three of the Third Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Con ... _Article_3) which deals with EVERYONE in a combat zone, whether they have a uniform on or not, whether they are a civilian or not. To quote wikipedia: "It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof)". Now, people covered by this clause of the Geneva Conventions are NOT POW's (as I stated in my first post), but it is still a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions to torture them.

Indeed, the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html) ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are subject to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. So much for your argument.

Mind you, some of the captured were combatants in war, wearing the Taliban uniform, which were light brown Pakistani vests and pants, yellowish green jacket and the pitch-black thick Turban, which in Afghanistan was only used by the Taliban, and was actually their mark of honor, always worn when in battle and when carrying out official duty.

That's not the people who were in question. All the "bush war crimes" nonsense came from Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Not that this matters (as I said, they are subject to the Geneva Conventions whether they wore a uniform or not) but what you said is simply not true. Most detainees at Guantanamo, for example, were captured in Afghanistan.

 

[GasBandit]

As for the Geneva conventions, the whole point of the Geneva convention was to set out the definition that if you are a soldier you MUST wear a uniform, as well as other requirements. By intentionally not wearing uniforms in order to blend in with civilian populations, non-uniformed combatants by definition do not have claim to the rights of protection of uniformed soldiers under the Geneva convention.

To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly.

So much for that argument.

It's good to know you didn't actually read my post. If you had, you would have seen I was refering to Common Article Three of the Third Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Con ... _Article_3) which deals with EVERYONE in a combat zone, whether they have a uniform on or not, whether they are a civilian or not. To quote wikipedia: "It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof)". Now, people covered by this clause of the Geneva Conventions are NOT POW's (as I stated in my first post), but it is still a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions to torture them.

Indeed, the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html) ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are subject to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. So much for your argument.

The supreme court huh? Yeah, I guess that settles it as 100% right, set in stone forever and ever.

Also, here's interesting food for thought... if a signatory country who ratified in 1949 or 1956 has a radical change in form of government, and no longer upholds their end of the "Geneva" bargain, should they really still be considered signatories?

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Also, here's interesting food for thought... if a signatory country who ratified in 1949 or 1956 has a radical change in form of government, and no longer upholds their end of the "Geneva" bargain, should they really still be considered signatories?

Should it matter? Surely it's still just human decency to uphold the Geneva Convention?

 

[GasBandit]

Also, here's interesting food for thought... if a signatory country who ratified in 1949 or 1956 has a radical change in form of government, and no longer upholds their end of the "Geneva" bargain, should they really still be considered signatories?

Should it matter? Surely it's still just human decency to uphold the Geneva Convention?

Human decency. There's an oxymoron if ever I heard one... heh.

But to answer the question, no. If a country doesn't play by the rules, why should the rules protect them? Otherwise, it becomes a meaningless double standard. And it becomes very important to have an even standard when we're talking about Brussels pressing charges against the head of a nation for war crimes.

Oh wait, Remember? Turns out they can't do that anyway, so the whole "bush war crimes" thing is moot to begin with.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Oh wait, Remember? Turns out they can't do that anyway, so the whole "bush war crimes" thing is moot to begin with.

From that article:

immunity for all ministers for all crimes while they are still in office

So Bush can be tried as soon as he's out of office, should they want to.

 

[GasBandit]

Oh wait, Remember? Turns out they can't do that anyway, so the whole "bush war crimes" thing is moot to begin with.

From that article:

immunity for all ministers for all crimes while they are still in office

So Bush can be tried as soon as he's out of office, should they want to.

Yeah, they can tell themselves that if it helps.

 

[Dieb]

Also, here's interesting food for thought... if a signatory country who ratified in 1949 or 1956 has a radical change in form of government, and no longer upholds their end of the "Geneva" bargain, should they really still be considered signatories?

Should it matter? Surely it's still just human decency to uphold the Geneva Convention?

Human decency. There's an oxymoron if ever I heard one... heh.

But to answer the question, no. If a country doesn't play by the rules, why should the rules protect them? Otherwise, it becomes a meaningless double standard. And it becomes very important to have an even standard when we're talking about Brussels pressing charges against the head of a nation for war crimes.

Oh wait, Remember? Turns out they can't do that anyway, so the whole "bush war crimes" thing is moot to begin with.

It's amazing. You STILL haven't read my original post. If you had at any point, you would realize that what Bush has done is a war crime under US law. It has nothing to do with international courts. Specifically, the War Crimes Act of 1996 (url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3680:) where a war crime is defined as a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions".

The supreme court huh? Yeah, I guess that settles it as 100% right, set in stone forever and ever.

Yes, because ruling that these detainees are subject to Article Three of the Geneva Conventions is EXACTLY the same as ruling that slaves could never be US citizens and all the other horrible things in the Dred Scott decision. I note that you don't actually have an argument for why these detainees should not be afforded protection under Article Three, other than your own opinion that governmental change in countries that signed the treaty should invalidate their signature, an argument that means nothing legally.

Also, of course, I sited the Supreme Court because I was arguing that torture was a war crime under US law, and if it ever came down to trials (which I doubt), they would be the final appeals court for deciding if the detainees should be afforded Geneva protection.

 

[Troll]

The supreme court huh? Yeah, I guess that settles it as 100% right, set in stone forever and ever.

Yes, because ruling that these detainees are subject to Article Three of the Geneva Conventions is EXACTLY the same as ruling that slaves could never be US citizens and all the other horrible things in the Dred Scott decision. I note that you don't actually have an argument for why these detainees should not be afforded protection under Article Three, other than your own opinion that governmental change in countries that signed the treaty should invalidate their signature, an argument that means nothing legally.

Also, of course, I sited the Supreme Court because I was arguing that torture was a war crime under US law, and if it ever came down to trials (which I doubt), they would be the final appeals court for deciding if the detainees should be afforded Geneva protection.

Hmmm. Not the best argument IMO. What you mean to say was something like "While the Supreme Court can make mistakes, their most recent decision is what matters when determining current policy. And their latest decision was that the Geneva Convention applies to Gitmo detainees." Or something like that.

Not to take sides here, mind you. I find a lot of GB's arguments to be compelling. I think both sides have made valid points.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Oh wait, Remember? Turns out they can't do that anyway, so the whole "bush war crimes" thing is moot to begin with.

From that article:

immunity for all ministers for all crimes while they are still in office

So Bush can be tried as soon as he's out of office, should they want to.

Yeah, they can tell themselves that if it helps.

Brilliant. So, last time I was wrong because that wasn't the law. When I corrected you that actually, the law does allow it, you just say "Yeah well their law doesn't matter". I like it.

 

[GasBandit]

[quote="Mr_Chaz":w45udi7h]

Oh wait, Remember? Turns out they can't do that anyway, so the whole "bush war crimes" thing is moot to begin with.

From that article:

immunity for all ministers for all crimes while they are still in office

So Bush can be tried as soon as he's out of office, should they want to.

Yeah, they can tell themselves that if it helps.

Brilliant. So, last time I was wrong because that wasn't the law. When I corrected you that actually, the law does allow it, you just say "Yeah well their law doesn't matter". I like it.[/quote:w45udi7h]

That's actually the true, base crux of the matter... there's still very much an unsettled no-man's-land between the so-called "world court" and the concept of national sovereignty. It all boils down, really, to who wins and who is in whose custody. Really, even the allies at the end of WW2 didn't have legal jurisdiction to hold war crimes trials at Nuremberg. They just did it because they won overwhelmingly and nobody who would object to it was in any position to stop them any more. Thus, we see that all international law is only as strong as those who enforce it, and how willing they are to do so, which is why the UN is such a laughing stock in the malignant dictatorial parts of the world.

 

[zero]

It's kinda freaky... it is as he's plunging his fingers in his ears and chanting "lalalalala, not listening..."

 

[GasBandit]

It's kinda freaky... it is as he's plunging his fingers in his ears and chanting "lalalalala, not listening..."

Funny, much the same could be said about the other side as well.

 

[Espy]

Obama has made Clinton EPA head Carol Browner an advisor. That's right, good ol' "global warming is gonna kill us all tomorrow," Audubon society chair, was-but-suddenly-now-isn't-a-socialist Carol Browner.

Oh yeah, she's a class act. Watch out! It's global warming! It's coming right at me! Aaaaaargh!

 

[Mr_Chaz]

That's actually the true, base crux of the matter... there's still very much an unsettled no-man's-land between the so-called "world court" and the concept of national sovereignty. It all boils down, really, to who wins and who is in whose custody. Really, even the allies at the end of WW2 didn't have legal jurisdiction to hold war crimes trials at Nuremberg. They just did it because they won overwhelmingly and nobody who would object to it was in any position to stop them any more. Thus, we see that all international law is only as strong as those who enforce it, and how willing they are to do so, which is why the UN is such a laughing stock in the malignant dictatorial parts of the world.

But before you were arguing that foreign combatants were not necessarily bound by the Geneva convention, and justifying it, so you obviously do take international law seriously, so why the double standards?

You spend ages justifying a (arguable) breach of international law, and then as soon as you get evidence that you can't counter you just say that the international law isn't important.

So who's worse, the state who no longer uphold the Geneva convention (the enemy), or the state who choose not to uphold any international law that doesn't suit them (your version of the USA)?

 

[Dieb]

That's actually the true, base crux of the matter... there's still very much an unsettled no-man's-land between the so-called "world court" and the concept of national sovereignty. It all boils down, really, to who wins and who is in whose custody. Really, even the allies at the end of WW2 didn't have legal jurisdiction to hold war crimes trials at Nuremberg. They just did it because they won overwhelmingly and nobody who would object to it was in any position to stop them any more. Thus, we see that all international law is only as strong as those who enforce it, and how willing they are to do so, which is why the UN is such a laughing stock in the malignant dictatorial parts of the world.

All well and good, I actually pretty much agree completely, but it doesn't change the face that a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions is a war crime under US law. For the third time, the War Crimes Act of 1996: url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3680:

Who thinks GasBandit will ignore this yet again?

 

[JCM]

*raises hand*

You spend ages justifying a (arguable) breach of international law, and then as soon as you get evidence that you can't counter you just say that the international law isn't important.

Gasbandit now changing argument now that USA is shown to break the same international law they have used as a measuring stick to define "good/bad" countries, in 3...2...1

As for the Geneva conventions, the whole point of the Geneva convention was to set out the definition that if you are a soldier you MUST wear a uniform, as well as other requirements. By intentionally not wearing uniforms in order to blend in with civilian populations, non-uniformed combatants by definition do not have claim to the rights of protection of uniformed soldiers under the Geneva convention.

To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly.

So much for that argument.

It's good to know you didn't actually read my post. If you had, you would have seen I was refering to Common Article Three of the Third Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Con ... _Article_3) which deals with EVERYONE in a combat zone, whether they have a uniform on or not, whether they are a civilian or not. To quote wikipedia: "It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof)". Now, people covered by this clause of the Geneva Conventions are NOT POW's (as I stated in my first post), but it is still a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions to torture them.

Indeed, the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html) ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are subject to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. So much for your argument.

Mind you, some of the captured were combatants in war, wearing the Taliban uniform, which were light brown Pakistani vests and pants, yellowish green jacket and the pitch-black thick Turban, which in Afghanistan was only used by the Taliban, and was actually their mark of honor, always worn when in battle and when carrying out official duty.

That's not the people who were in question. All the "bush war crimes" nonsense came from Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Not that this matters (as I said, they are subject to the Geneva Conventions whether they wore a uniform or not) but what you said is simply not true. Most detainees at Guantanamo, for example, were captured in Afghanistan.

Bingo.

It's kinda freaky... it is as he's plunging his fingers in his ears and chanting "lalalalala, not listening..."

Guess you havent talked to right-wing Bush apologists much.... believe it or not, we had guys even worse than him the past 3 forums

 

[GasBandit]

But before you were arguing that foreign combatants were not necessarily bound by the Geneva convention, and justifying it, so you obviously do take international law seriously, so why the double standards?

You spend ages justifying a (arguable) breach of international law, and then as soon as you get evidence that you can't counter you just say that the international law isn't important.

So who's worse, the state who no longer uphold the Geneva convention (the enemy), or the state who choose not to uphold any international law that doesn't suit them (your version of the USA)?

When "international courts" are often merely an extension of anti-US policy, it's not unreasonable to discard them. Also, consider - the only national leaders who have been put on trial for war crimes were those who were crushed and extracted by force.

As for why we started talking about one aspect and eventually moved to a broader scope, I was following the natural course of the argument.

All well and good, I actually pretty much agree completely, but it doesn't change the face that a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions is a war crime under US law. For the third time, the War Crimes Act of 1996: url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3680:

Meet the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which made an end run around the Supreme Court's gaffe and trumps the WCA1996.

 

[Dieb]

All well and good, I actually pretty much agree completely, but it doesn't change the face that a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions is a war crime under US law. For the third time, the War Crimes Act of 1996: url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3680:

Meet the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which made an end run around the Supreme Court's gaffe and trumps the WCA1996.

It doesn't trump the WCA1996. It did change it so that only "grave breaches" of Common Article Three were war crimes under US law. It then goes on to SPECIFICALLY state that TORTURE was a "grave breach". If you had read my original post (have you yet?) you would see numerous examples of US courts ruling that waterboarding is torture.

Moreover, the MCA pretty much aknowleged that Article Three DID apply to detainees. Hamdan v Rumsfeld was specifically about the right to a trial that is afforded under Article Three. The MCA was about establishing courts to comply with Hamda v Rumsfeld and Article Three, as it itself states:

"Sec 948b. (f) Status of Commissions Under Common Article 3— A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary `judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. "

 

[JCM]

Oops, the Military Commissions Act of 2006? Didnt the Supreme court ignore it and went ahead giving Gitmoprisoners rights? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washi ... ref=slogin

And was declared unconstitutional by The Supreme Court?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... 6-1195.pdf

You know, just because Saddam put forth a decree saying he could continue in power 99% of Iraq voted for him, it doesn't make it true, the same goes for Bush saying that its okay for him to torture people and abuse international law, I'd take the easy way and push forth that one could be judged for the acts pre-MEC,but its obvious that Bush considered himself above the law-

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

So far Bush has been proved to violated- (whether republicans pretending to be libertarians like it or not)
-The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441)
-The Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees
-United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees

Lets also toss out some more, not that it will influence the blind who will probably run away from defending against it-
-Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340-40A)
-Detainment of Material Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 3144)
-U.S Constitution, Article 1: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States.”
-U.S. Constitution, Article II: President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully
executed
-U.S. Constitution, Article VI: “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
-Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
-Amendment V: no person will “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law.”
-Amendment VI: “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury….to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation…to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.”

"(f) Status of Commissions Under Common Article 3— A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary `judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. "

:teeth:

 

[Futureking]

Everybody had to put up with 8 years of comparing Bush to Hitler, get ready folks, for 4 to 8 years of comparing Obama to Hitler. And no, this ain't the Ben Stein bit from the convention.

Well, I guss my brain hurt too, because Obama wont need to ask for all that power Bush went after (right to imprison someone withi US soil without any proof/trial/lawyer if one is terrorist suspect/ability to torture people overseas/listening in to conversations/etc).

Because all that power BUsh fought for now is in the hands of Obama. Ironic, really, the republican party ended up giving Obama much more power than the last democratic president, and a senate majority to boot.

Obama is Lex Luthor. I'm telling you.

 

[Troll]

Obama is Lex Luthor. I'm telling you.

But I thought he was Hitler? No, wait, wasn't he supposed to be the Antichrist?

I'm getting so confused. :?

 

[Iaculus]

Obama is Lex Luthor. I'm telling you.

But I thought he was Hitler? No, wait, wasn't he supposed to be the Antichrist?

I'm getting so confused. :?

It's DC. He can be all three if he really wants.

 

[Bubble181]

Just to set a little matter straight: the international court is not Brussels, but The Hague. We have lots of stuff here in Brussels, but no international courts. That's either The Hague or Strassburg. Or...whatever that French city is. There's a third one there somewhere :-P

Also: the problem with GasBandit's argument - which sounds compelling - that once a regime changes and a country no longer follows the Geneva convention, it shouldn't be considered a signatory member anymore, simply means you're allowed to use all the same dirty tricks the other one did. This is a VERY immoral stance to take. First off, it pretty much means we could've/should've put the germans in death camps after the second world war because, you know, they started it!
Secondly, it goes against the pretty basic idea ingrained oh so strongly in our Christian-based Western culture - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Really, now.
Thirdly, assuming you agree the US/the West are the good guys, that's saying the good guys defending and upholding liberty/freedom/the Light/Good against Evil/corruption/terrorism/whatever should use all means available to the enemy. I'm sorry, that's not what every story from the Bible over Superman and any other source you can come up with says. The moment you become what you hate most, you've lost. The moment you betray the principles you claim to be defending ,you stop being the good guy. And so on.Put otherwise: no one should be above the law simply because they're the good guys.

Blergh.

 

[GasBandit]

Again, JCM, two more supreme court decisions, both 5/4 split along party lines, highly controversial and easily seen as overturnable in the future, much like Jim Crow. Plus, as Jackson was erroneously purported to say, the supreme courtmade their decision, now let them enforce it. Isn't it interesting though, how now that Obama has started getting the picture from security briefings, that all the noise about shutting down gitmo etc has suddenly vanished? And of course the media doesn't call any attention to that.

It doesn't trump the WCA1996. It did change it so that only "grave breaches" of Common Article Three were war crimes under US law. It then goes on to SPECIFICALLY state that TORTURE was a "grave breach". If you had read my original post (have you yet?) you would see numerous examples of US courts ruling that waterboarding is torture.

As I've said since the beginning of these ridiculous bits, from stacking naked people to waterboarding... wake me when we're taking pliers to finger/toenails, maybe I'll be able to generate some outrage then.

Moreover, the MCA pretty much aknowleged that Article Three DID apply to detainees. Hamdan v Rumsfeld was specifically about the right to a trial that is afforded under Article Three. The MCA was about establishing courts to comply with Hamda v Rumsfeld and Article Three, as it itself states:

"Sec 948b. (f) Status of Commissions Under Common Article 3— A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary `judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. "

Wasn't that about the trial by military tribunal, not civilian court?

Gotta break for a second for the day's links -

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

James Clyburn says that any federal money included in the stimulus should be sent back home to lawmakers' districts. Sanford says that this is the same thing as an earmark, but without calling it an earmark. And then Clyburn came out with this line about Sanford's opposition, "[H]e happens to be a millionaire ... He may not need help for the plantation his family owns, but the people whose grandparents and great-grandparents worked those plantations need the help" in the form of federal money. Mark Sanford's response? Yeah, that wasn't a rational explanation as to why he is in favor of earmarks. "You're playing the race card as your way of trying to defend stimulus packages and deficit spending out of Washington, D.C."

Obama asked President Bush to request the remaining $350 billion so that he will have it ready to go come inauguration day.

This is a real shocker: GM says that it may need more money from the government .. aka. the taxpayers. Yeah .. this bailout is working big time, isn't it?

Guess who is next up to the government trough? Public radio and public TV.

The death tax is set to expire in 2010 .. but not if the Democrats have it their way.

Guess what's back? An anti-OPEC bill that would subject OPEC to U.S. antitrust law. I'm not really sure that would work.

The states are going to get $80 billion for school grants so that we can continue to abuse our children by subjecting them to government education. Payoff to teacher's unions.

Here's a list that has some boxers in a bunch .. ten things President Bush got right.

Dick Morris hits it all: Obama, the Warren Courts, torture, and the future of intelligence in this country.

I love it .. Al Franken went to the governor of Minnesota and the secretary of state asking for an election certificate, and they said no.

This is a great article about American's inherent love of government. Hey, it's not your fault, you were educated in government schools.

Some experts are saying that Obama doesn't need to spend anything to get the economy going .. just suspend the income tax for an entire year.

Joe Scarborough made the mistake of discussing torture with a moonbat, Chrystia Freeland. He says her logic is so sophomoric that he can't continue the conversation.

A new study shows that surveillance cameras in high-crime areas of San Francisco do not actually prevent crime.

One of the repercussions of a sour economy: less people getting divorced.

Hard days at burger king, apparently. Not very literate ones, either.

 

[GasBandit]

Oh, and my responses may be a little sparse and short the next couple of days... the owner is visiting on site from out of town... so I have to put my "libertarian morals" in the drawer, wear a nice shirt and slacks instead of my usual hawaiian short and sandals, and look all industrious.

 

[Bubble181]

A new study shows that surveillance cameras in high-crime areas of San Francisco do not actually prevent crime.

Anyone thinks they do are idiots. Cameras are useful in two ways; as deterrents for some small stuff, but mostly as as way of helping identify the criminals and produce records as evidence. That this second use is still banned in many states is beyond me.

 

[JCM]

Also, here's interesting food for thought... if a signatory country who ratified in 1949 or 1956 has a radical change in form of government, and no longer upholds their end of the "Geneva" bargain, should they really still be considered signatories?

Should it matter? Surely it's still just human decency to uphold the Geneva Convention?

We tossed out human decency as soon as we accepted torture, sadly.

Again, JCM, two more supreme court decisions, both 5/4 split along party lines, highly controversial and easily seen as overturnable in the future

Just like whatever law Bush enacted to that could behave like a sad pathetic excuse for a human being, and make the world laugh whenever US talks about human rights?

I wondered why people overseas were toasting on Sept11 a it happened, but after hearing the opinion of the right, I can being to see why they'd treat it like it was an attack upon another morally corrupt nation.

Also: the problem with GasBandit's argument - which sounds compelling - that once a regime changes and a country no longer follows the Geneva convention, it shouldn't be considered a signatory member anymore, simply means you're allowed to use all the same dirty tricks the other one did. This is a VERY immoral stance to take. First off, it pretty much means we could've/should've put the germans in death camps after the second world war because, you know, they started it!

Bingo.

Nor should USA claim any country breached the Geneva convention, nor complain of a country going against any UN order. :slywink:

Thirdly, assuming you agree the US/the West are the good guys, that's saying the good guys defending and upholding liberty/freedom/the Light/Good against Evil/corruption/terrorism/whatever should use all means available to the enemy. I'm sorry, that's not what every story from the Bible over Superman and any other source you can come up with says. The moment you become what you hate most, you've lost. The moment you betray the principles you claim to be defending ,you stop being the good guy. And so on.Put otherwise: no one should be above the law simply because they're the good guys.

This I would have to disagree.

USA, outside of humanitarian aid, since the Truman doctrine been acting only upon their own interests, with it actually intesifying and worsening during the Kissinger-Truman years. USA supports several human-rights violating dictators (ala the Saudi Arabian royal family), has in the past helped throw out democratically elected governments to install US-friendly puppets (like the Shah in Iran) and actually had a hand in the creation of many conflicts today (like the forgotten Osama or Saddam or arming Iran).

While its normal for an American to think his side is morally on the right, after all since small they're bombarded with writings on truth, freedom and the American way, but sadly for a while their government hasn't been giving them a good name. Sad, really, as Americans still count for some of the friendliest people Ive met over my travels.

 

[Futureking]

Joe Scarborough made the mistake of discussing torture with a moonbat, Chrystia Freeland. He says her logic is so sophomoric that he can't continue the conversation.

Gas. Waterboarding IS torture. But it works, so why not? You torture them. Confirm the information with the spies and you save the day. Until we invent some sort of humane method with a 100% success rate, I'll stick with torture. We're not killing them or anything. Rather than whine about Gitmo, I challenge anyone to come up with a humane yet more effective method.

But, if the prisoner coughs up accurate information, just treat him kindly after all that hell you gave him. I'm still a big softie.

 

[Bubble181]

JCM: you misunderstand me. I personally don't think the USA is GDI to Al Qaeda's NOD, I assure you. (the Brotherhood is way cooler, for one thing ). I'm stating a hypothesis. Starting from the assumption most Americans make that their side is, you know, the right side, the rest follows naturally.

 

[makare]

Joe Scarborough made the mistake of discussing torture with a moonbat, Chrystia Freeland. He says her logic is so sophomoric that he can't continue the conversation.

Well, what do you expect. Anyone who thinks that torturing someone is ok as long as it "works" is never going to truly listen and appreciate a differing opinion. But seriously, that is so 1500's is it just old or has it finally become retro?

 

[JCM]

Gas. Waterboarding IS torture. But it works, so why not? You torture them. Confirm the information with the spies and you save the day. Until we invent some sort of humane method with a 100% success rate, I'll stick with torture. We're not killing them or anything. Rather than whine about Gitmo, I challenge anyone to come up with a humane yet more effective method.

Yep.

Its torture. Lets forget pretending morality and say it for what it is, however I must admit that the newer techniques we're hearing about (loud music bombarding them) seems to have some promise, if we add the S.A.S. strategy of after a long time of solitary confinement, adding a cell mate who is actually an agent. Heck, S.A.S is still a world reference in such cases, I'd say since Britain is in with US on Iraq, get some agents there to help out.

Anyone who thinks that torturing someone is ok as long as it "works" is never going to truly listen and appreciate a differing opinion.

Well, to be fair, also anyone who agrees with torture has been shown to be a morally sick person, so anything he says is pretty much taken as words from scum, and looses the second he complains about human rights abuse, or how the other side is treating the guys from his side.

 

[Bubble181]

Joe Scarborough made the mistake of discussing torture with a moonbat, Chrystia Freeland. He says her logic is so sophomoric that he can't continue the conversation.

Well, what do you expect. Anyone who thinks that torturing someone is ok as long as it "works" is never going to truly listen and appreciate a differing opinion. But seriously, that is so 1500's is it just old or has it finally become retro?

I'm.....umm...Which one are we supposed to consider to be the idiot? Freeland sounds perfectly reasonable to me, the other one sounds like a raving idiot.

 

[makare]

Joe Scarborough made the mistake of discussing torture with a moonbat, Chrystia Freeland. He says her logic is so sophomoric that he can't continue the conversation.

Well, what do you expect. Anyone who thinks that torturing someone is ok as long as it "works" is never going to truly listen and appreciate a differing opinion. But seriously, that is so 1500's is it just old or has it finally become retro?

I'm.....umm...Which one are we supposed to consider to be the idiot? Freeland sounds perfectly reasonable to me, the other one sounds like a raving idiot.

I didn't say either was an idiot. They both have sound intellectual reasons for believing what they do. He can call her logic sophomoric all he wants but it isn't. Where they disagree is in the moral realm. She believes that torturing people is wrong and that anything that we might gain from it is tainted. Basically, fruit of the poisonous tree. He seems to be one of those people who believes that any action is acceptable as long as it saves a life, well, as long as the victims are "bad". I understand both sides. But I do respect that guy for not claiming that we are NOT torturing people. At least he admits that.