'War criminal!': Ron Paul backers crash Cheney-Rumsfeld reunion

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by byteshertz

 

Link your source for disturbing the peace please.

A private strucure that is open and accesible to the public - Mall, Hospital, Amusement park, Grocery Store, Walmart, Wendys etc etc etc. including Cheneys speech interuptions all meet requirements for disturbing the peace.

Again I urge you to please learn the law and its application. I salute your effort, but its going to get you in trouble and you are going to understand why.

That's disturbing the peace?.. huh?.. in what state?.. in Cal 415PC would be one of the last laws enforced or considered unless there is a specific victim who had their peace "maliciously and willfully" disturbed. On duty sworn cannot have their peace disturbed or be offended... so who is the "victim" in this video?.. who made it obvious their "peace" was being disturbed?..

Granted, some of those 1930s Germans there to gush adoration on their fuhrer.. groaned with disapproval.. but if people could be detained/arrested based on audience reaction, sporting events would be an orgy of peace disturbance.. ie disturbing the peace cant be implied, it must be "maliciously and willfully" specific.

Yelling/saying asinine poop while acting a fool in a place open to the public is perfectly legal... like a Doug Stanhope show or obmao rally.

As they say, "no victim, no crime".. there is no "victim" of misdemeanor peace disturbance here, no fight, challenge to fight, or words "likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction" .. trespass based on the owners revocation of "right to pass", eh.. maybe enough for a BS pinch.. charges, doubtful.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...
415. Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment
in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of
not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment
and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or
challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another
person by loud and unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

reply to post by mishigas


Go back and read what the person I was replying to said before being critical of what I said.
Thank you.

Originally posted by aptness
quote]While provisions of treaties are incorporated into federal law, by amending or changing the federal law, you are not changing the treaty, its meaning or conditions. Otherwise treaties would be meaningless, as individual states could then unilaterally redefine treaties by changing or amending their domestic laws. This is not tenable.

Actually almost all tretaies have the ability to be changed by one country, and there are various protocols in place for that to occur, from a signing reservation, to amending between 2 of the signatories, etc.

You seem to perceive this as a black and white issue, and it is not. Again, foreign treaties are subject to US court action. Like it, dont like, its the way it is, and in this case the argument you made is the US violated CAT, and I matinain based on Supreme Court decicions it was not violated because of UR Court actions.

Originally posted by aptness

....There is no clear agreement regarding precisely which norms are jus cogens nor how a norm reaches that status, but it is generally accepted that jus cogens includes the prohibition of genocide, maritime piracy, slaving in general (to include slavery as well as the slave trade), torture, and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement.

The last phrase of that being critical - no clear agreement..... generally accepted..

Its not an absolute, which is why I poiinted it out. If it were, it would not use terminaology like no clear agreement, generally accepted.

Originally posted by aptness
And under your rationale, if governments declared other governments illegitimate then they could attack those respective countries without being bound by any laws or treaties because that country’s government was illegitimate.

Which is an accepted practice under your international law. If it were not, then there never would have been an authorization from the Security Council to invade Iraq if they refused to withdraw from Kuwait, or US intervention in Hatii during their last coup. Your argument is now taking the opposite side, which is a country acting unilaterally with absolutely no justification, which is not the case at all. It also ignores UN CHarter for self defense, since your response is so broad.

Originally posted by aptness
Yes, they have. I never contested otherwise, nor would any thinking person.

Can you please point out where the Taliban, or Al queida, have signed on to the Geneva Conventions, CAT, IHL, Rule of war? They are not a country, not a reocignized government, and have no relations with the UN (aside from basic NGO food assistance, which they have since ceased because they would rather their people starve than recevie help from the infadels.

Those 2 entities are not subject to any of that. How do we know, because as we have discussed before you cannot force an international agreement on one party who refuse it. Lets go back and look at the Pinochet issue, which supports my argument.

Originally posted by aptness
Did the Bush administration invoke this argument?

Yes they did, and again you need to get off the Supreme Court ruling involving the UCMJ and Article 3. The Military Comissions Act of 2006 corrected the argument the Supreme Court made. Continually quoting Hamdan and Hamdi does not support your argument in this case because they were not the final say on the issue, the Military Comission Act was.

Originally posted by aptness
Yes they did. From the opinion (pp. 73-74)—

No it did not. Read the entire case review. The question brought before the court was did the PReisdent have the legal authority to establish a military tribunal that removed the Supreme Court as a counter balance to the results. The response the court gave was the Tribunal Bush wanted was illegal because it ignored the fact only Congress could change the UCMJ and military procedure for tribunal. In that ruling, they cited the 3 geneva convention only to note it was built into the UCMJ, which again is why they said Bush did not have any authrotiy to change that, only Congress.

Which is what the Military COmissions Act of 2006 did.

Originally posted by aptness
From the opinion (p. 10)—

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.

Are you arguing that the provision regarding the tribunals — GC Art. 3(d) — apply but that others, in the same Article, do not?

I am saying the part of that argument you keep seizing on is the Supreme Court stating Geneva 3 applies, because its built into the UCMJ. The Tribunals Bush wanted changed that process, and only Congress can make changes to the UCMJ - which was thei ruling. and again, the Military comission Act of 2006, the law you ignore or discount, replaces the courts decision.

The Supreme Court did not rule on enemy combatants, the geneva convention etc. Their main focus was the argument the tribunals Bush setup were in violation of law, and the court agreed. The violation did not come from the GEneva Convention itself, but again the argument the PResident does not have any legal authority to change the UCMJ or military protocol.

The manner of Hamdi and Hamdans arguemtn, and the Supreme Court ruling is the equivelant of the Pentagon Papers. The 2 journalists who printed that info were charged with violation of the espionage act. The Supreme Court received the case but only ruled on the overall argument, which was can prior restrain be invoked when the onl argument given is embarrasment to the Government. They did not touch the media printing classified information, and as such journalists today can still be charged for printing classified info.

A ruling on the overall situation, leaving the minor details to be worked out by either the lower court, or legislation by Congress to address the deficencies, which occured in both cases.

Originally posted by aptness
Let’s look at US law — your favorite — to see what the United States understands as violations of the Conventions and Article - I am aware of what is says, since I am the one who linked and cited it.

and again, you are leaving out the Military Comission Act of 2006 - Regardless of your arguments and cited sources, you are avoiding the fact the act fixes the issues the USSC pointed out as thei reason for overturning the DC court.

Your cited sources are augmented / modified / changed by case law since the war started in 2001. In addition to MCA06, which placed detainees back under military control, it accepted as legal the other changes it origionally rejected. Had the Court disgareed, then they could have exercised Judicial review on the MCA06, which they did not.

As far as the argument on toruture goes -
Torture Memos

This is the legal exchange between White House Council and the US Attorneys General Office with regards to enhanced interrogation techniques and how it applies.

Also, your argument is based solely on military action. The CIA is the one repsonsible for carrying out the interrogations, not military.

Originally posted by aptness
Addressing the portion I underlined: Yeah, the President has the ‘ability’ to authorize CIA officials to use “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but that means absolutely nothing in regards to the legality of those techniques.

Check Rasul vs. Rumsfeld

Originally posted by aptness
Which one is it? Are they legal or are they violations?

No.. I am saying that the people who called them war criminals are not going to speaking engagement s by Obama, Gates or Biden to scream the same thing, since they are continuing where Bush and gang left off. My irritation is not because they called them war criminals. My irritation is their double standard on the issue, which is to be offended by the actions Bush started, while ignoring them when it comes to Obama and his administrations actions.

To me it speaks volumes.. These protesters are not upset because people were subjected to torure. To them its a political issue. If it werent, then they would be protesting at all government functions. Instead they choose bush and gang, and only when media is going to be present.

Originally posted by aptness
The question is not whether it is “less lethal,” the question is whether it is legal.

Fair observation - we need to go back and explore the torture memos in addition with the Supreme Court rulings that extended qulified immunity to the people involved.

Originally posted by aptness
Rape is “a whole less lethal” than, for instance, execution. Could President Bush or Obama order al Qaeda detainees to be raped? If your answer is no, why not?

Nope - because the Bush administration reviewed in depth what techniques could be used on detainees, consulting white house council and the AG's office, with the result of those dicussions being employed, and then reviewed by the Supreme Court where they were upheld.

Bush did not seek clarification on rape, or even execution, but limited the scope to a few interrogation techniques.

Originally posted by aptness
Xcathdra, the fact that I have not, apparently, expressed my opinion frequently enough, in regards to those points, to your satisfaction, is something you are going to have to either accept or get over.

You have not sir. please point out in threads covering this type of issue where you have taken any other than the US to task over violations of any Un treaty / International Law. Your response here is contrary to your argument that you have not because you only concentrate on the US Government, that its your only concern.

The goal of these treaties, as ive said many times before, is designed to prevent the action before it happens, not after the fact. Holding the US accountible, which I am all for, does nothing to fix the over all problem when we ignore the rest of the world.

Concentrating on just one country does not fix the issue, and ignoring the other countries does nothing but encourage the behavior.

Originally posted by aptness
First, I don’t need to condemn or point out anything to be against it. Second, I have condemned both situations you mention. And lastly, and with all due respect, I don’t owe you any satisfactions.

i am not looking for satisfaction in the least bit. You have not taken others to task over this issue, and concentrate solely on the US and her actions. You have not condemend any action other than those of the US, to the extent of citing court cases that support your argument, while ignoring anything beyond it that does not support your argument.

I find it unusual that you have such strong positions on this topic, while ignoring those positions when it comes to any country other than the US.

Originally posted by aptness
Even if I was in agreement with al Qaeda’s methods, or Obama’s policies — which I’m not — while I would be, perhaps, guilty of hypocrisy, the things that happened under Bush, or are happening under Obama, would still be illegal.

From a moral aspect, i completely agree. From a legal aspect, the Supreme Court disagrees wtih you. To go further though, why continually call out Bush, who is not even President, while ignoring Obama. This is the argument people make, which again is why i feel that its based on politics only, and not actual disregard for human life.

Originally posted by aptness
My opinion or my actions, or lack thereof, have absolutely no influence over the legality of the policies we are debating here. I have debated this with you, for a while now, on the understanding that we were doing so based on our individual interpretations of the law, not on a principle of partisanship or support for one group’s or one person’s policies.

i disagree with the comment about actions not having any influence. Its only when people like you, who are outspoken and firm in you convictions and beliefs, who can make an argument, even in front of the media, and do so in such a way that it brings the subject to the surface without any drama that would take away from that very argument.

As for the rest of your comment, since we are both citizens of this country and we both vote our opinions and views are important and do matter.

Originally posted by aptness
I’m not interested otherwise, not only because it’s of no relevance to the legal questions, but I would consider it to be a waste of time. There is enough partisan bickering on ATS as it is.

i agree with the partisan issue here on ats. As fas as our debate and free exchange of ideas, you never know what can come of that. a person somewhere who is in a position to make changes could very well stumble across this site, and find these debates, and see something from a different perspective that has an impact, causing the person to act.

After all its one of the things that has had an impact on law in this country for hundreds of years. Some clerk in the Supreme Court, researching cases for a justice, who comes across a case from back in the day with the extrordinary dissenting opinion that, while irrelevant when it was drafted, is releveant now and changes the course of history.

edit on 15-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

reply to post by GovtFlu


thats why i asked for a source citation to see which state you were referring to. As far as a private place open to the Public, walk into an ER and start yelling "f#ck you" and see what happens.

The peace officer not being able to have his peace disturbed if I remeber right is a Supreme Court ruling. We have to have thicker skin etc etc etc, which makes sense.

As far as finding a victim, we ask if their peace was disturbed. if they say yes we explain they would need to go to court, and some are ok, others decline. The important part is they get the choice, just as the person who shouted made their choice.

i will say that state laws will vary, so if its legal out west, its not neccisarily legal in the north east.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually almost all tretaies have the ability to be changed by one country, and there are various protocols in place for that to occur, from a signing reservation, to amending between 2 of the signatories, etc.

Of course treaties can be changed, that was never my point. My point was that treaties can’t be changed unilaterally, especially through changing or amending one party’s domestic law.

Are you telling me you believe one party to a treaty can change the treaty, unilaterally, without the other parties consent or agreement? That’s a very curious understanding of what a treaty is.

The last phrase of that being critical - no clear agreement..... generally accepted..
Its not an absolute, which is why I poiinted it out. If it were, it would not use terminaology like no clear agreement, generally accepted.

You should just come out and say you support torture. In this instance as used by the United States, of course.

Because if it’s done by some other organizations or countries (al Qaeda, China, Iran) they are then crimes of barbaric nature you want everyone here, and elsewhere, to denounce and repudiate to your satisfaction.

Your argument is now taking the opposite side, which is a country acting unilaterally with absolutely no justification, which is not the case at all. It also ignores UN CHarter for self defense, since your response is so broad.

Self-defense right is irrespective of the legitimacy of the government who initiated the attack. It’s pointless to bring up Article 51 of the UN Charter to justify, particularly, the US invasion of Iraq — Iraq didn’t attack the United States.

Under other international instruments, such as the Convention Against Torture, war doesn’t serve as justification for torture either.

The Military Comissions Act of 2006 corrected the argument the Supreme Court made.

It wasn’t an ‘argument,’ it was a decision. A legally binding decision, as are all Supreme Court decisions.

The Military Commissions Acts corrected the shortcomings and flaws of the commissions the Bush administration set up, that the Supreme Court identified and ruled, on more than one occasion.

I am saying the part of that argument you keep seizing on is the Supreme Court stating Geneva 3 applies, because its built into the UCMJ.

So if no provisions of the Conventions were incorporated in the UCMJ, the Conventions didn’t apply at all?

The Tribunals Bush wanted changed that process, and only Congress can make changes to the UCMJ - which was thei ruling. and again, the Military comission Act of 2006, the law you ignore or discount, replaces the courts decision.

Did the Congress of the United States, through the Acts change the Geneva Conventions?

The Supreme Court did not rule on enemy combatants, the geneva convention etc. Their main focus was the argument the tribunals Bush setup were in violation of law, and the court agreed.

Because that was the question before them. And what laws did they say the tribunals violated? The UCMJ and Article 3 of the Conventions.

The violation did not come from the GEneva Convention itself, but again the argument the PResident does not have any legal authority to change the UCMJ or military protocol.

The violations weren’t to the UCMJ solely but also to Article 3 of the Conventions.

But if you keep saying the Court didn’t rule the Conventions applied enough times maybe CPAC will give you a medal next year.

As far as the argument on toruture goes -
Torture Memos
This is the legal exchange between White House Council and the US Attorneys General Office with regards to enhanced interrogation techniques and how it applies.

We’ve all understood by now that the President of the United States and his appointed lawyers are the only authority you accept as legitimate on questions of legality of their own actions.

The executive branch policing itself — just like our founding fathers envisioned!

Also, your argument is based solely on military action. The CIA is the one repsonsible for carrying out the interrogations, not military.

My argument is based on the fact that the Bush administration ordered people to be tortured. The nature of these orders doesn’t change whether it was the military or the CIA carrying them out.

Originally posted by aptness
Rape is “a whole less lethal” than, for instance, execution. Could President Bush or Obama order al Qaeda detainees to be raped? If your answer is no, why not?

Nope - because the Bush administration reviewed in depth what techniques could be used on detainees, consulting white house council and the AG's office, with the result of those dicussions being employed, and then reviewed by the Supreme Court where they were upheld.

So if the President had ordered rape, and the Office of Legal Counsel had signed off on it, it was A-OK.

I think the correct answer was “no, because it’s against the law.” [18 USC 2441(d)(1)(g)] As is torture.

You have not sir. please point out in threads covering this type of issue where you have taken any other than the US to task over violations of any Un treaty / International Law. Your response here is contrary to your argument that you have not because you only concentrate on the US Government, that its your only concern.

I’m flattered that my opinion and participation on ATS is of concern to you, but, again, it is irrelevant to the legal questions at hand.

reply to post by aptness


The 3rd Geneva convetions says if you violate the rules, you are not protected by them. It also says torture / execution are possible, and its neither condoned or condmned.

The CAT is part of the Federal Bod of Law, and as such is subject to our Court system. You will find comparison where other countries have done the same (local law to deal with the treaty).

Italy
Canada - Bouzari case
England - Jones v Saudi Arabia
South Africa

While I understand why you invoked Federal Statute on torture, you need, again, to read the military comission act of 2006, which modifies that statute.

By the way Bush's canceled visit to Switzerland is proof enough that this is political and not based on anything else. The ECCHR has issued inditements agsint Bush, even though we are not a signatory to them or even governed by any of their rulings. We are not a signatory to the OPCAT, and as such not subject to universal jurisdicition. We are not a signatory to the ICC, and as such they have no authority over this.

When a prosecutor comes out and blatantly says Bush is guilty, it makes one wonder exactly how blind justice is in this case.

In addition to the above, they, ECCHR and a few other organizations have also decided that Bush no longer has immunity as a head of state because he is no longer in office. Ignoring for the moment they defeated their own argument, care to point out where they get thier basis for removing immunity from a person that is not subject to the treaty they cite to enfore it?

Just so we are clear, the accusation is Bush commited war crimes by ignoring treaties and international law, yet its ok for them to ignore treaties and international law to justify their actions?

UN treaties do not trump our laws - plain and simple, and there are a few countries that have the same viewpoint.

If you want UN sovereignty, its all yours. Just make sure you take it with you when you leave the country.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The 3rd Geneva convetions says if you violate the rules, you are not protected by them. It also says torture / execution are possible, and its neither condoned or condmned.

Please cite the articles of the Conventions that “say torture is possible.”

While I understand why you invoked Federal Statute on torture, you need, again, to read the military comission act of 2006, which modifies that statute.

Is torture a crime under US law?

I asked you if Bush could have ordered the detainees to be raped, and you didn’t answer — you said, only, that rape wasn’t considered. I reiterate the question: could have Bush, or any President, ordered the detainees to be raped? And why?

When a prosecutor comes out and blatantly says Bush is guilty, it makes one wonder exactly how blind justice is in this case.

... Or perhaps the things Bush ordered — and admitted so, unapologetically, in his book and on TV appearances — are so obviously illegal that only people in denial, like Mr. Bush or yourself, believe otherwise.

If you want UN sovereignty, its all yours. Just make sure you take it with you when you leave the country.

What I want is those guilty of violations, be it of US or international law, who have acted in the name of my country to be punished according to the law. If the relevant US authorities refuse to do so, I hope others in the international community have more respect for the rule of law than Bush or Obama.

If failing to unconditionally support, and cheer, the policies of a US President, and wanting to see the guilty punished according to the law, makes me in your eyes unworthy to live in the country, I am glad it’s not up to you who gets to stay and who goes.

Originally posted by aptness
Please cite the articles of the Conventions that “say torture is possible.

I already have, in a few posts now in this thread. Go back and read.

Originally posted by aptness
Is torture a crime under US law?

Sure is.. However the MCA06 defined what that was, and enhanced interrigation techniques dont meet the criteria.

Originally posted by aptness
I asked you if Bush could have ordered the detainees to be raped, and you didn’t answer — you said, only, that rape wasn’t considered. I reiterate the question: could have Bush, or any President, ordered the detainees to be raped? And why?

Ask and answered, go back up and read my reply.

Originally posted by aptness
Or perhaps the things Bush ordered — and admitted so, unapologetically, in his book and on TV appearances — are so obviously illegal that only people in denial, like Mr. Bush or yourself, believe otherwise.

Says the person who ignores any law, ruling or legislation that doesnt agree with his argument. Case in point invoking 2 court cases while trying to ignore the MCA06.

Originally posted by aptness
What I want is those guilty of violations, be it of US or international law, who have acted in the name of my country to be punished according to the law. If the relevant US authorities refuse to do so, I hope others in the international community have more respect for the rule of law than Bush or Obama.

Then feel free to hold them all accountible in violation of the law. Funny how you argue to hold people accountible for violatin gthe law, while being ok when its done to support your argument. Also, I point out again that at no point have you ever taken Obama to task for his continued Bush policies, nor have you ever challeneged any other foreign leader, including the Taliban or Al Queida.

Just further proof, like the protestors in the OP, that your argument is based on your hatred of Bush and nothing else. If you truely cared about what our Presidents do, then you would have gone after both of them from the start.

You didnt.

Originally posted by aptness
If failing to unconditionally support, and cheer, the policies of a US President, and wanting to see the guilty punished according to the law, makes me in your eyes unworthy to live in the country, I am glad it’s not up to you who gets to stay and who goes.

I was thinking the same thing about you. I really have no desire to wake up under Sharia law because you want International Law to trump safety and common sense.

Also you need to quit with the personal attacks. We are both adults, and we can disagree as adults. Pretending to know what my personal beliefs are, even though I have made the argument now on more than one occasion is further proff that ou only see what you want to see, and ignore the rest.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I already have, in a few posts now in this thread. Go back and read.

No you haven’t because no Geneva Convention permits torture, regardless of the classification of a prisoner.

The intent of Article 3 of the Conventions is to guarantee a minimal level of treatment for persons who are not part of an organized military force participating in armed conflict. Common Article 3 specifies the basic and minimal protections afforded to persons captured in conflict, that are not protected by other articles in the Conventions.

The Article, besides imposing the judicial requirements the Supreme Court ruled the tribunals the Bush administration set up lacked, also imposes a ban on torture and cruel and inhumane treatment of these prisoners, despite your many attempts to pretend that it does not.

In other words, by the laws of war, these are the most basic and minimal protections people captured in armed conflicts are afforded as recognized by “civilized peoples.” And the United States, in 21st century, has failed to even meet these standards.

And this article applies, the Supreme Court ruled, to persons captured in relation to the conflict with al Qaeda. You may not like it, or George Bush, or John Yoo, but unless the United States withdraws from the Conventions, we are bound by them.

And here you are, a police officer, and a self-proclaimed student of the law, defending the policies these people implemented, offensive to the most basic laws of war.

Sure is.. However the MCA06 defined what that was, and enhanced interrigation techniques dont meet the criteria.

Congress cannot redefine what constitutes torture in an international treaty by amending domestic law.

Regardless of what the Military Commissions Act changed or amended, the Geneva Conventions still say what they say, and having signed and ratified them, and even helped draft them, the United States are bound to comply with them.

But since you bring up the Military Commissions Act of 2006, let me quote a statement made by three of the primary authors of the Act regarding its relation to the Geneva Conventions—

JOINT STATEMENT OF SENATORS McCAIN, WARNER, AND GRAHAM ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS
September 28, 2006

Mr. President, we are submitting this statement into the record because it has been suggested by some that this legislation would prohibit litigants from raising alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions. This suggestion is misleading on three counts.

First, it presumes that individuals currently have a private right of action under Geneva. Secondly, it implies that the Congress is restricting individuals from raising claims that the Geneva Conventions have been violated as a collateral matter once they have an independent cause of action. Finally, this legislation would not stop in any way a court from exercising any power it has to consider the United States’ obligations under the Geneva Conventions, regardless of what litigants say or do not say in the documents that they file with the court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan left untouched the widely-held view that the Geneva Conventions provide no private rights of action to individuals. And, in fact, the majority in Hamdan suggested that the Geneva Conventions do not afford individuals private rights of action, although it did not need to reach that question in its decision. This view has been underscored by judicial precedent – and even Salim Hamdan himself did not claim in his court filings that he had a private right of action under Geneva.

Still, this legislation would not bar individuals from raising to our Federal courts in their pleadings any allegation that a provision of the Geneva Conventions – or, for that matter, any other treaty obligation that has the force of law – has been violated. It is not the intent of Congress to dictate what can or cannot be said by litigants in any case.

By the same token, this legislation explicitly reserves untouched the constitutional functions and responsibilities of the judicial branch of the United States. Accordingly, when Congress says that the President can interpret the meaning of Geneva, it is merely reasserting a longstanding constitutional principle. Congress does not intend with this legislation to prohibit the Federal courts from considering whether the obligations of the United States under any treaty have been met. To paraphrase an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts recently, if treaties are to be given effect as Federal law under our legal system, determining their meaning as a matter of Federal law is the province and duty of the judiciary headed by the Supreme Court. So, though the President certainly has the constitutional authority to interpret our Nation’s treaty obligations, such interpretation is subject to judicial review. It is not the intent of Congress to infringe on any constitutional power of the Federal bench, a co-equal branch of government.

Most importantly, the lack of judicial enforceability through a private right of action has absolutely no bearing on whether Geneva is binding on the Executive branch. Even if the Geneva Conventions are not enforceable by individuals in our Nation’s courts, the President and his subordinates are bound to comply with Geneva, a set of treaty obligations that forms part of our American jurisprudence. That is clear to us and to all who have negotiated this legislation in good faith.

Also you need to quit with the personal attacks.

Let’s see—
(1) you are claiming my motives are purely political (“your argument is based on your hatred of Bush and nothing else”);

(2) you claimed that, under — a distorted representation of — my argument, sharia law would be implemented in the United States (“I really have no desire to wake up under Sharia law because you want International Law to trump safety and common sense.”); and

(3) and told me to leave the country because, according to you, I “want UN sovereignty” (“If you want UN sovereignty, its all yours. Just make sure you take it with you when you leave the country.”)

And I am making personal attacks?

In respect to the first accusation, you claim my motives are political because, according to you, “at no point have you ever taken Obama to task for his continued Bush policies,” and as I have responded to you numerous times now, even if my motives were political, the relevance of it to the question of the legality, vel non, of Bush’s or Obama’s actions is absolutely none.

But it’s becoming more and more apparent that you are not interested in the discussion of these matters strictly from the legal perspective.

Your insistence on this accusation says more, I believe, of your own motives than my own, not to mention that it’s an incredibly arrogant position, implying that others have to demonstrate to you, by meeting some threshold you have imagined, that they are critical of Obama as they are of Bush, in order to have a valid argument.

You have also made the accusation that I have not repudiated the actions of other countries or organizations like al Qaeda (“nor have you ever challeneged any other foreign leader, including the Taliban or Al Queida.”). You have made this accusation in regards to other members as well.

Again, what is the relevance of this in respect to the legal issues I, and others, have raised?

The fact that others are guilty means, therefore, that Bush is innocent? That we can’t point out and explain why we think Bush is guilty? That we have to “go after” everyone else before we can even talk about Bush?

The argument is analogous to a defense attorney saying "your honor, I know my client is being accused of murder, but the plaintiffs have never repudiated murder by other people, so he is clearly not guilty and they can’t accuse him.”

Besides being a red herring, it’s an incredibly weak argument.

Accusations (2) and (3) don’t even deserve an answer quite frankly.

Documents that make up the Rules of armed conflict are below. Not all countries are participants which means not all countries are bound by them. All of the info in this post can be found in my responses in this thread.

• 1948 UN Genocide Convention (129).
• 1949 The four 1949 Geneva Conventions (188). These seek to protect four categories of victims under the power of the enemy: wounded and sick on land; wounded, sick, and shipwrecked at sea; POWs; and civilians.
• 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention (95). Two protocols, concluded in 1954 and 1999, address the export of cultural property from occupied territory, and measures to improve implementation of the convention's provisions in civil as well as international wars.
• 1976 UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (65).
• 1977 Protocol I Additional to the 1949 Conventions, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (155).
• 1977 Protocol II Additional to the 1949 Conventions, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-international Armed Conflicts (148).
• 1980 UN Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions of the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (73). The Protocols annexed to the Convention (including two adopted in 1995 and 1996) address non-detectable fragments, landmines, incendiary weapons, and blinding laser weapons.
• 1997 Ottawa Convention Prohibiting the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines (84).
• 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (4). Articles 5 to 8 contain an important summary of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Remedies for violations

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.

- The above is pretty straight forward and easy to read and understand


So what happens when the rules are violated? Lets look below:

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war, but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.

Recap - Violate the laws of war, and you lose the status afforded as a POW. So you loose the protection of the Geneva Conventions (prescribes what a POW / Enemy Combatant / Terrorist / Spy is), with the exception of how the illegal actions are to be dealt with.

Taliban / Al Queida actions and status:
A - Not part of any treaties, agreements, International laws etc
B - Do not meet any requirement under the Geneva Convention to be considered anything but an irregular force.
C - Constantly violate the terms of those conventions by their actions towards civilians (human shields / reprisal)
D - The manner in which they conduct combat operations from protected / off limit areas (Hsopitals/Schools/mosque)


What does it say about Spies / Terrorists?

Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.

The Rules of war, as we can see from the very beinging of this post (and the 400 other posts I have made in this thread that you continue to ignore), are made up of all those treaties / agreements. So again, it is saying the actions taken towards Spies / Terrorists do NOT fall under the authority of the Rules of war, which means all documents that make up the rules fo war do not cover people who fall under those 2 groups - Terrorist and Spy = no protection.

Citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not protected by it (Article 4: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it".), whether they are spies or terrorists. Also, citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed and do not abide by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are not protected by them. (Common Article 2).

- The info above is included in my posts / replies in this thread as well as others. I went ahead and made the font size large, and added the red so you cant ignore the info.

Fourth Geneva Convention - Article 4

So yeah, the Geneva Convention does say this.

You understand my profession and the manner I do my job with the same ignorance and zeal that you understand Federal Law and International Law, which is to say you dont have a clue.

As far as the comment about Congress and International Treaties - You are wrong
Treaty Clause US Constitution - Article 2 Section 2

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.

- As I have stated many times that you choose to ignore.

As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.

- As I have stated many times that you choose to ignore.

Read:
Head Money Case
Reid v. Covert
Goldwater v. Carter

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid vs. Covert. The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

As far as your linked statement goes - Statement
You yourself just pointed out the flaw in your argument. You need to read beyond what you just want to see. You would find the amendment those 3 offered were rejected the following day. Spector actually voted for the bill even with the defeat of his amendment. It also takes notice the truibunals under the Geneva convention are in place for lawful combatents. The 3rd Geneva convention is not applied to unlawful combatents, and offers no protection, as I have argued before that you ignore.

The concern they had was the loss of habeous corpus and removal of the Judicial system to make legal challenges. The Supreme Court ruled aliens can be denied habeous corpus, and asserted themselves as the reviewing authority for any challenge by a detainee.

Let’s see—
(1) you are claiming my motives are purely political (“your argument is based on your hatred of Bush and nothing else”);

(2) you claimed that, under — a distorted representation of — my argument, sharia law would be implemented in the United States (“I really have no desire to wake up under Sharia law because you want International Law to trump safety and common sense.”); and

(3) and told me to leave the country because, according to you, I “want UN sovereignty” (“If you want UN sovereignty, its all yours. Just make sure you take it with you when you leave the country.”)

And I am making personal attacks?

Yeah, you are. My Profession has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. The examples you pointed out above occured because you would not stop the personal attacks, which I requested several times prior to me calling you out. Again, you only see what you want, and ignore anything else.

Yor motives are political - thats evident in your arguments by trying to use case law, while ignoring any other coutcome from that case law. You do not adequately understand how the Government works in terms of The constitution, Supremacy Clause, Treaty Clause, and this is evident in your argument when you say Congress cant change international treaty. You tell me that you do call these groups out, while at the same time ask how they are relevant to the topic at hand. Its very relevant, and I dont know how to get you to open your eyes on that point.

Its evident because you have never made any arguments against Obama, Gates, Taliban, Alqueida, Britain etc etc, aside from one comment in this thread a few pages back, when I first pointed that discrepancy out. You have never even mentioned in any thread going after Bush that Obama continues those policies. So again, refusal to even mention that, its evident what your argument is, which is not based on the rule of law, but what best way to go after Bush.

I have pointed all of this out to you many many many many times, and you ignore it because it undermines your argument.

As far as my comment about waking up under sharia law, I stand by that. Your arguments to date have been based on an equal playing field, where the rule of law is evident, and both sides abide by it. I dont know where your thought process comes from, but do you honestly think thes extremists, who hijacked 4 planes, killed a few thousand civilians in the process, and taking into account all of their others actions to date, care about The Genvea Conventions, Rule of Law, IHL, International Law, the UN or any type of legislation the US comes up with?

You see this issue as completely black and white, and its anything but. Your entire foundation for your argument is the reliance on International Law as the final step, which it is not. We are not a unified planet yet, and still retain sovereignty over our country and actions. You place International Law over that concept, which is where your argument is failing.

Even if you succesfully argue International Law trumps US domestic law, there is absolutely no legal recourse any other country can use, because the US is not part of the ICC, and as such the ICC has no jurisdiction over our actions. Your use of Universal Jurisdiciton has alrready been established as a good idea, but not practical in application when we talked about Pinochet, which is to say its not relveant here either.

I am going to assume you know your history. The best example I can give for you is the American Revolution. The British had one of the best trained military on the planet during that time, and there were established rules of war (dont shoot officers, open warfare in the field, etc).

That style war would not work for the American forces, and as such geurilla tactics were used which "violated" the rules of warefare at that time. Britains insitence on maintaining that status quo was their ultimate undoing. The Taliban / Al Queida use those exact same tactics, which we can see with our foray there, in addition to the Soviets, going back through history.

The British lost because of their strict adherence to rules.
We won because the playbook the Brits wanted to use would not end well for us.

One of the most common topics of conversations after the cold war with Russian Generals was American Militry doctrine. We have a playbook, but we are not tied to it. The Russians knew, and admired, the fact that if something on the battle field was not going the Americans way, instead of using the book, they threw it away and adapted tactics.

You are arguing the British case for the Taliban / Al Queida, and ignoring history in the process. You are ignoring the type of the war and the mindset of the extremists. Do you really think you are going to be held as a hero to the Taliban / Al Queida for arguing against American action?

They will slit your throat just as easily as the other civilians they have done that to, and will have no problem rapping you up in the Rules of war to make their point that the only law they answer to is Sharia law.

You remind me of the peace activist. A peace activist is at a protest, preaching about turning the ohter cheek when people attack us. After about 15 minutes, the activist is done talking, and a person from the crowd walks up and as hard as he can jacks the activist in the face. When the activists goes to defend himself, the attacker begins to recite what the activist was saying, turn the other cheek, blah blah.

When the activist backs down, the attacker, again as hard as he can, jacks the activist in the face, sending him relling back to the ground. When he gets back up and goes to defend himself, the attacker again uses the speech, turn the other cheek, it wont happen again etc. When the activist backs down, he again is bashed in the face by the attacker.

Moral of the story - Not everyone plays by the same rules, and there comes a time where a stand must be made and conventional thinking set aside, because we are dealing with an unconventional enemy.

If you dont understand that, I will try a Star Trek Comparison. Trying to apply the rules of war and all it encompasses to the Taliban/ Al queida with the hopes it will stick is like the Kobayashi Maru exercise. The rules are there, and those rules make it a no win scenario. The only time it was succesfully beaten, was when Kirk decided the rules were not working, threw them out the window, and made up his own game plan, which were outside of the established rules.

We can end the debate right here since we are not going to change each others minds. You want the rule of law to be black and white, and my opinion is if the Japanese did not want to be attacked with a nuclear weapon, they never should have picked the fight in the first place, like Al Queida and the taliban did.

All wars are crimes, regardless of what rules are in place to protect whomever. The simple fact we even have rules for war does nothing by highlight the absurdity of the human race. Its like a guy on death rown who hangs himself in his cell a few hours before his execution. He is rushed to the hospital, money is wasted to keep him alive, so he can be put to death.

anyways...

Have a good one and Ill see you in the next thread. Its a big world, so there is some topic we will eventually see eye to eye on.

Thanks for the debate,

Respectful members,
I would like to alert you to the following incorrections and distortions posted by member Xcathdra in his last post:

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Documents that make up the Rules of armed conflict are below. Not all countries are participants which means not all countries are bound by them.

Xcathdra makes this vague claim that “not all countries are participants,” with the implication that “not all countries are bound by them,” but never once links to the list of signatories of the Conventions, or explains why this assertion he is making is important for this debate, but more importantly, he also doesn’t tell you that all the countries the United States is currently conducting military operations in are signatories to the Conventions (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen), as is, of course, the United States.

One is left wondering who these countries are that “are not bound” by the Conventions, and their relevance to the United States military operations and this particular discussion we’ve been having.

Xcathdra then proceeds to quote a list of names of international treaties and, perhaps adopting the belief of who shouts loudest must be right, in bold red letters, quotes several statements from this wikipedia entry.

For those that have been paying attention, you will notice that in that wikipedia entry, not a single mention is made of Article 3 of the Conventions — the one the United States Supreme Court ruled applies to the detainees of the “war on terror,” namely in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case (opinion).

The 3rd Geneva convention is not applied to unlawful combatents, and offers no protection, as I have argued before that you ignore.

Xcathdra makes the claim that the “3rd Geneva convention” doesn’t apply to “unlawful combatants,” information, he says, I ‘ignore,’ as if the only possible explanation for someone not agreeing with him is if they’re ‘ignoring’ the ‘facts.’

He provides no authoritative reasoning as to why the Conventions don’t apply — except for the memos authored by the appointed lawyers of the White House Office of Legal Counsel, colloquially referred to as the “torture memos” — and quotes from wikipedia and his own belief that they don’t apply to “unlawful combatants.”

Here’s why you should be doubtful of Xcathdra’s claims:

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is called Common Article 3 because it appears in all the Geneva Conventions. Let’s look at what the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) — the highest authority on the Geneva Conventions — says about the purpose and intent of Article 3. From the ICRC commentary on the Third Geneva Convention—

Up to 1949, the Geneva Conventions were designed to assist only the victims of wars between States. The principle of respect for human personality, the basis on which all the Conventions rest, had found expression in them only in its application to military personnel. Actually, however, it was concerned with people as human beings, without regard to their uniform, their allegiance, their race or their beliefs, without regard even to any obligations which the authority on which they depended might have assumed in their name or in their behalf.

The ICRC continues—

Does this mean that Article 3 is not applicable in cases where armed strife breaks out in a country, but does not fulfil any of the above conditions? We do not subscribe to this view. We think, on the contrary, that the scope of application of the Article must be as wide as possible. There can be no drawbacks in this, since the Article in its reduced form, contrary to what might be thought, does not in any way limit the right of a State to put down rebellion, nor does it increase in the slightest the authority of the rebel party. It merely demands respect for certain rules, which were already recognized as essential in all civilized countries, and embodied in the national legislation of the States in question, long before the Convention was signed.

The ICRC goes on to add—

What Government would dare to claim before the world, in a case of civil disturbances which could justly be described as mere acts of banditry, that, Article 3 not being applicable, it was entitled to leave the wounded uncared for, to torture and mutilate prisoners and take hostages? No Government can object to observing, in its dealings with enemies, whatever the nature of the conflict between it and them, a few essential rules which it in fact observes daily, under its own laws, when dealing with common criminals.

In essence, Article 3 of the Conventions, provides the basic and minimal protections afforded to anyone captured in armed conflict “without regard even to any obligations which the authority on which they depended might have assumed in their name or in their behalf,” that governments, “under [their] own laws,” already afford to “common criminals.”

What are these basic and minimal protections? From Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions—

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.

It further goes on to say that—

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.

Article 3 reflects these basic protections, the commentary recognizes are already part of “the national legislation” of states of “all civilized countries,” “long before the Convention was signed.”

The government of the United States — as with many others — is not allowed to torture “common criminals.” It is not allowed to torture a drug dealer, it is not allowed to mutilate a thief, when in custody of the state. And in all cases of criminal prosecution, it must afford “all the judicial guarantees” “indispensable by civilized peoples,” principles embodied in our national Constitution as well.


The government argued, in Hamdan, that detainee Hamdan wasn’t protected by the Conventions because al Qaeda was not a signatory to the Conventions. From the Supreme Court opinion at pages 73-75—

Since Hamdan was captured and detained incident to the conflict with al Qaeda and not the conflict with the Taliban, and since al Qaeda, unlike Afghanistan, is not a “High Contracting Party”—i.e., a signatory of the Conventions, the protections of those Conventions are not, it is argued [by the government], applicable to Hamdan.

The Court responds to this argument by saying that, irrespective of al Qaeda being a signatory or not, there is one provision of the Conventions that applies (Article 3)—

We need not decide the merits of this argument [that al Qaeda is not a signatory] because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not one between signatories.

The Court goes on to explain that Article 3 applies because the conflict is occurring in the territory of a signatory (Afghanistan)—

Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because, like Article 2, it appears in all four Geneva Conventions, provides that in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons 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 ... detention.”

Xcathdra argues that, since the Taliban weren’t the legitimate government of Afghanistan, all treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, made by previous and legitimate governments of Afghanistan don’t apply, a conclusion the Supreme Court disagrees with, having ruled that Article 3 applied.

Let’s look again to the ICRC commentary for insight on this question—

The obligation resting on the Party to the conflict which represents established authority is not open to question. The mere fact of the legality of a Government involved in an internal conflict suffices to bind that Government as a Contracting Party to the Convention. On the other hand, what justification is there for the obligation on the adverse Party in revolt against the established authority? Doubts have been expressed on this subject. How could insurgents be legally bound by a Convention which they had not themselves signed? But if the responsible authority at their head exercises effective sovereignty, it is bound by the very fact that it claims to represent the country, or part of the country. The "authority" in question can only free itself from its obligations under the Convention by following the procedure for denunciation laid down in Article 142 (14).

In other words, unless the authority that “exercises effective sovereignty” denounces the Conventions, following the procedures specified in Article 142, they are considered to be bound by them, even if that authority is not recognized as legitimate by other nations.

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, therefore, applies to the detainees of the “war on terror,” captured in Afghanistan — and in the territory of other signatories — as the Supreme Court so found (pp. 88-89)—

The Court is correct to concentrate on one provision of the law of war that is applicable to our Nation’s armed conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, as a result, to the use of a military commission to try Hamdan. That provision is Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Justice Kennedy, concurring with the majority, further emphasizes the significance of this fact (at p. 89)—

By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel.

If there was any doubt if persons, in relation to an armed conflict, whether lawful or unlawful combatants, could be outside the protections of the Conventions, the ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention (relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) regarding protected persons, says the following—

The definition of protected persons in paragraph 1 is a very broad one which includes members of the armed forces -- fit for service, wounded, sick or shipwrecked -- who fall into enemy hands. The treatment which such persons are to receive is laid down in special Conventions to which the provision refers. They must be treated as prescribed in the texts which concern them. But if, for some reason, prisoner of war status -- to take one example -- were denied to them, they would become protected persons under the present Convention. [4th Geneva Convention]

The commentary goes on to elaborate—

Members of resistance movements must fulfil certain stated conditions before they can be regarded as prisoners of war. If members of a resistance movement who have fallen in to enemy hands do not fulfil those conditions, they must be considered to be protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention. [4th Geneva Convention]

In other words, if captured persons are prisoners of war they are protected under the Third Geneva Convention, if they are not prisoners of war, then they are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

This means that “unlawful combatants” — those who “do not fullfil [the] conditions” of prisoners of war — are entitled to, at least, the minimal protections afforded by the Conventions, namely Article 3.

If there was still any doubt as to whether these people could be outside the law, as the Bush administration, and other torture apologists, claim, the commentary removes it completely by noting—

In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

You understand my profession and the manner I do my job with the same ignorance and zeal that you understand Federal Law and International Law, which is to say you dont have a clue.

Xcathdra claims I am ignorant of “federal law and international law,” but as we have seen, both the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross, the highest authority when it comes to the Conventions, say that Article 3 applies to the detainees of the “war on terror,” and that nobody can be outside the law.

Xcathdra is, by consequence, proclaiming that the highest court in the nation, and the highest authority in international humanitarian law, are ‘ignorant’ in their respective fields of expertise.

I must not be that ‘ignorant’ if my position mimics that of the competent authorities in these matters.

The examples you pointed out above occured because you would not stop the personal attacks

The rest of Xcathdra’s post, as evidenced here, is on the level of a “he started it” excuse children invoke, to justify his personal attacks, and are a rehash of the same personal accusations he has made numerous times before, namely, that my position and my argument are based on strictly political motivations, and that they would lead to the implementation of sharia law in the United States.

Respectfully, I find these particular arguments to be below the standard ATS claims to strive for, and I won’t be commenting on them any further, despite, I’m sure, their continuation.

I hope the ATS membership has the discernment to focus on the legal arguments and decisions — this is, after all, a debate about the legality of certain policies — and be able to identify the red herrings, that are of no relevance to an intellectual debate.

meh nvm.. I am not going to sink to your level.

A friendly reminder...

...that Courtesy Is Mandatory. Civility and decorum have long been a cornerstone of ATS. It is possible to discuss dissenting views in a cordial manner without attacking one another.

Please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from abusing your fellow members. Adherence to this simple request is expected.

reply to post by aptness

Respectful members,
I would like to alert you to the following incorrections and distortions posted by member Xcathdra in his last post:

To be honest, both of you are becoming quite tedious in this thread. Please take your pissing contest out back, away from the rest of us. Or get a room or something!

This thread must have set some crappy record for long, long posts from the two of you. Seriously, it has become very tiresome seeing those mega-replies to each other.

Thank you.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by aptness

 

Respectful members,
I would like to alert you to the following incorrections and distortions posted by member Xcathdra in his last post:

To be honest, both of you are becoming quite tedious in this thread. Please take your pissing contest out back, away from the rest of us. Or get a room or something!

This thread must have set some crappy record for long, long posts from the two of you. Seriously, it has become very tiresome seeing those mega-replies to each other.

Thank you.

edit on 17-2-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

My appologies to you...

reply to post by Xcathdra


I'm not replying to YOU -- I'm just setting the record straight for anyone reading this and who is "on the fence." Though being "on the fence" concerning torture -- means you are to big a coward to just admit you enjoy evil, but aren't really sure of the benefits yet.

Your reply seems to constantly be; Read about MCA06; LINK
That was Bush's "get out of jail free" law. Before that moment -- everything he did was illegal.

>> I think the ONLY reason that Bush and Cheney are not in prison or in front of a firing squad, is that Karl Rove and their faction in the CIA dug up enough dirt on enough people in power that they held them for ransom.

That's another thing he did that was illegal, BEFORE he got it made legal; domestic spying.

Of course, people like Xchandra will point to the Terrorists, who would behead you, and justify Domestic Spying. The POWER of having secrets like that, means that anyone who opposes you, can be destroyed by an anonymous call about his habit of sleeping with young boys. WE KNOW there is a lot of corruption in Washington, but we are better off NOT having the biggest crook know all the details rather than the public.


>> That's what I'm talking about -- our Judicial system is broken, and works to round up someone with the wrong phrase on a T-Shirt, but a man who starts and illegal war to profit from, or who makes extra money by putting the entire Gulf ocean in jeopardy -- they are untouchable.

Everything Hitler did, was also Legal. The Geneva Conventions, was more than just a trial -- it was to hold people accountable, even WHEN SOMETHING WAS LEGAL but should be known to be WRONG.

>> The proof of the BAD LEGAL concepts of the Bush administration is that NOBODY can be liable for torture, and ANYONE can be listed as not being covered by the Geneva Conventions.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Recap - Violate the laws of war, and you lose the status afforded as a POW. So you loose the protection of the Geneva Conventions (prescribes what a POW / Enemy Combatant / Terrorist / Spy is), with the exception of how the illegal actions are to be dealt with.

Taliban / Al Queida actions and status:
A - Not part of any treaties, agreements, International laws etc
B - Do not meet any requirement under the Geneva Convention to be considered anything but an irregular force.
C - Constantly violate the terms of those conventions by their actions towards civilians (human shields / reprisal)
D - The manner in which they conduct combat operations from protected / off limit areas (Hsopitals/Schools/mosque)

The people who were rounded up at GitMo and other detainment camps, were not PROVEN to be anything, much less "al Qaeda." And when you claim that Al Qaeda is NOT PART OF A STATE -- then claim your invasion of Afghanistan was because of their state sponsorship of Al Qaeda -- you contradict yourself. Either Al Qaeda was sanctioned by Afghanistan -- and thus, Al Qaeda is a part of THEIR war, or, if they weren't -- there is no reason to invade the country (and of course there wasn't, because 99% of the people in Afghanistan have never heard of al Qaeda).

What human shields are you talking about? I only heard this term when anti-war activists went to Iraq to try and stop the invasion -- and Pro-Bush shills in the media claimed he was using them as "human shields." The PROOF of Al Qaeda, is not any proven fact, and the connection of these people to al Qaeda, in most cases, was not proven.

Anyone, could be claimed to be part of Al Qaeda. And as Aptness pointed out; you are either covered by the 3rd or 4th Geneva convention -- you cannot be covered by NEITHER. Cheney used the VP as Executive, or non-executive but part of the Senate (because the VP gets a ti-breaker vote), so that he could claim "executive privilege" for secrets, and when proven not covered by that "privilege -- not right", was also not an executive.

>> A trial and a court should then be used to decide status -- or indefinite detention can be used by every despot in the world -- and in fact, they all claim the same things as G W Bush. And, all fascists states seem to love to torture people and come up with non-status conditions for people.

>> The US signed the Geneva Conventions and no person held by the US can "lose the protections" afforded by the Geneva Conventions -- NOR can they not be covered by our Constitution. Neither of these documents would mean anything if you can be called some term and "lose their protections" -- they are RESTRICTIONS on the Government and military.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The 3rd Geneva convetions says if you violate the rules, you are not protected by them. It also says torture / execution are possible, and its neither condoned or condmned.

Please cite the articles of the Conventions that “say torture is possible.”

While I understand why you invoked Federal Statute on torture, you need, again, to read the military comission act of 2006, which modifies that statute.

Is torture a crime under US law?

...

edit on 15-2-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)

He cannot find an "acceptable torture" because the Geneva conventions prohibit torture -- period. You are either covered in Article 3 OR in Article 4 -- as you already stated. You cannot be covered by NEITHER.

>> Now, the Bush administration did have "signing statements" and their own sort of dignified "Legal Statements" by their cronies -- but those mean anything -- they were just more of this invisible Golden Clothing that emperor Bush wore, and his courtesans accepted as gospel. Did I point out that our justice system is broken -- the fact that he wasn't prosecuted, does not mean there was not a crime and ample evidence to hold hearings.

>> The Code's for the marines and US military conduct -- CANNOT supersede the Geneva Conventions. They would only apply to our courts, but would not have value in Geneva or the Spanish World Courts (which is probably more likely a venue, since the World Bank has too much sway in Switzerland IMHO).

Now, our Supreme Court is extremely compromised. There is a lot of evidence, of financial benefits going to members, the latest of which, with Clarence Thomas. On his tax forms he failed to declare the $700,000 in consulting fees for his Wife from the Heritage Foundation. A right-wing "think tank" that is merely a propaganda paper pusher for rich robber barons like the Koch brothers. LINK

Another justice, got appointed in place of Harriet Myers, because he helped organize the "phony" protests that were used to stall the recount in the 2000 Presidential elections in Florida; John Roberts

Then we've got Dick Cheney's "hunting" trips with justices.

>> I'm sure that we are not privy to ALL the shenanigans. But when the Supreme Court rules that Corporations have the RIGHTS of people and that "money = influence" and they allow for foreign corporations to directly buy elections -- I don't give a damn what someone tries to justify -- that is FASCISM.

Our Supreme Court is majority ruled by fascists, and people who 10 years ago would be far-right Conservatives. The fact that we have been torturing, using propaganda to get into wars, spending government money on propaganda, allowing media consolidation with foreign ownership, allowing corporations to PAY for elections, passing the Patriot Act which suspends the Constitution, using extradition to get around human rights and Constitutional protections, silencing and imprisoning people in the Press and Whistleblowers -- sometimes for years without charges.

>> I could go on. Not that I'm a Ron Paul supporter -- but occasionally, I'm really happy that he raises a stink about a few things. Here he is quoting Naomi Wolf who has insightfully written the book; "Disaster Capitalism" -- which will help people understand many of Bush's "mistakes" in Domestic problems. So, here the 10 Signs of Fascism in America list.

>> So I don't care about WHAT rulings have happened since 2000 -- we had a Corrupt, non-elected, Coup in America and the Bush Crime Family ran everything like a mob does with extortion, lies and murder -- they deserve their time in court, if only for America to publicly reclaim it's honor.