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

reply to post by SmokeandShadow

How ignorant must a person be to think that Rumsfeld deserves the award?

Speaking of awards, I felt the same way when Arafat got the peace prize. And then, Obama.

reply to post by WeRpeons


To quote Mr. Alex Jones, beginning at :23

“You’ve got a ring-wraith nazgool undead, who's so full of evil. They’ve tried these on other people and they usually die very quickly, ‘cause they get depressed over not having a pulse, the body freaks out, you don’t have a pulse when you’re asleep at night, but they say Dick Cheney is doing great with it because he’s such a hateful demon.

Originally posted by Lightrule
I may have lumped you in with the abusers but I only did it to illustrate the point I made in my last post. Your job is to protect us from the sort of abuse we are seeing more and more of from the police these days. This goes hand in hand with the topic of this thread, you are also meant to protect us from corrupt politicians. I'm sure you have heard the saying, one bad apple spoils the bunch, before.

Point taken, and I do my best when dealing with other officers who employ questionable methods. I have been invovled in other incidents where I have taken control because of the direction the othr officer was taking. Those incidents have been sent in and as far as I have seen, taken care of through remedial training up to reassingment / termination.

When it comes to doing my job none of the politicans I haae come in contact with were treated any different than how I treat others. As for complaints I have received from people just in passing conversations about how certain members of city government operate, I always tell them that if they and others feel that way, go to city council meetings and voice your thoughts.

Originally posted by Lightrule
The sad fact however and this has already been said here in this thread, the system is so broken and so twisted that to attempt to use THEIR courts of law against our "leaders" would be pointless, they control every aspect of the court system. You say we need to get an attorney to get the ball rolling? Look at how sad your profession has become (MINE TOO!) your (our) hands are tied in this matter.

Respectfully speaking, I am not sure what you mean by our (police) hands being tied. I am not completely familiar with how Canadian Law Enforcement works, but here in the States, I can't just randomly show up at a politicans house and open an investigation based on nothing. I can do a knock and talk, but contact is voluntary, and they are not requiresd to answer the door, let alone talk to me or answer questions. If they did, I just violated their rights by starting an investigation with potentially criminal implications. Since I am asking guilt seeking questions, I would be required to Mirandize him, at which point i think the jig would be up. Even then their needs to be a violation of a law that would fall within my jurisdicition.

If we are talking about issues while they are in office, It goes to the AG for the State for investigation with the county clerk notified since it deals with an elected position. Any politician (State level and Higher) can be removed from office for wrong doing, including the 3 the people are talking about in this thread. Due to their "profession" there are safegaurds in place that state they cannot be "charged" while they hold elected office, which means the Police are removed from the process, and it actually goes to whatever entity they are elected to (House, Senate etc).

In Congress they can be stripped of their position and removed through their process, and that can be initiated by the people taking action. Once they are removed from office, ending their offical immunity, then the criminal stuff moves beyond the road block (removing them from status).

The Presidential level is almost the same. Articles of impeachment would need to be drafted and approved by the House. Once that is done the Senate holds responsibility for prosecuting the case, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides as Judge.

For what its worth if people who want them held accountible did some research, they could most likely accomplish getting the ball rolling.

Abuse of Power is an impeachable offense at that level, along with perjury (for those who want to try to make the case that he lied during offical proceedings.

If I am missing your point here please let me know and clarify what you mean.

Originally posted by Lightrule
Politicians love to sing the "we work for you" song but when 'we the people' try to use the same system they use against us we are flat out ignored. Many requests have been made from regular Joe's all the way to high powered attorneys asking for the documents (through FOIA requests) that would be required to charge these SOBs. Those people were either ignored, ridiculed or worse bullied so that the requests wouldn't happen. What now?

5 USC 552 - FOIA
EFOIA - Covers Electronic communique
Executive Order 13392 - 2005 Expanded FOIA
47 C.F.R. § 0.470 - Guidelines and Fees involved if for commercial use
FOIA DOJ - Guidelines / Exemptions / Fees / Reverse FOIA

If you can give me a few examples of the high powered attorneys who have been denied, along with the regular joes, and what information they were requesting. Simply saying the documents to hang the SOB's does the argument no good, both for clarification purposes as well as possible denial reasons.

Keep in mind the US is still enaged in Afghanistan and shifting out of Iraq. I throw that out there because chances are thats part of the info being requested. As far as bullying goes, do something about it. What recourse did the people who were bullied take?

Originally posted by Lightrule
Dick Cheney/Donald Rumfeld/George W. Bush all worked for the people. How many people does it take to hold them accountable? 1? 10? 50? 100? 15,000? 50million? All 300+ million Americans? How many people is it going to take before our police protectors grow a spine and arrest those who the people demand be arrested? Don't you work for the people as well?

Of course they work for the people. The majority of those people elected Bush / Cheney twice. The peoples representatives in Congress confirmed Rumsfeld - twice. If the people wanted them fired, then they should of actually voted. As a lawyer I dont need to remind you that The President / Vice President fall undert the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity while they are in office - You cant sue the king. This does NOT stop the "people" from getting off their asses though and storming the Representatives office in person, by phone, letters, emails, media etc to have them draft up articles of Impeachment.

The Constitution provides for several methods to remove Politicians, from elections where we get to overthrow our Government every 2 years, to impeachment. It even discusses what happens when the Government fails to represent and abide by the consent of the people.

So let me ask you guys a question - When Bush / Cheney was in office, how many people wrote their Congressman, or took any action at all, to get the ball moving on the methods provided to remove them? Simply going to an event and hurling insults is pointless. All it does, if at all, makes a news segment.

Even to this day, we have many threads on this site, and many many more, with comments, opinions, legal arguments, links to video of people going to an event. Thats all fine and dandy, but all it is, again respectuflly, is bitching and nothing more. The people who called Cheney / Bush and Rumsfelde war criminals at the event are hopless slackasses in this regard. I say this not because of their opinon, but because of their choice of action. They arent even in government anymore, and they are calling them names. If they are serious and truely beleive the war crimes charge, then do something about it.

Calling them names accomplishes nothing at all - period.

Seriously, if the people want to hold them accountible, do something other than calling them names. As much as I disagree with a few posters about the UN Convention Against Torture and the concept of Universal Jurisdiction, there are provisions in there that, depending on interpretation, allows a foreign country who is also a signatory to that treaty to assume jurisdiction if the target country refuses to act after requested to do so, or ignore the complaints outright.

There are many options open, but people need to get off their ass, do some research and actually follow through if they want real change.

Calling a person names at an event covered by the media is stupid - why?
Because instead of the media covering the speech, or actually following up with the war crime taunt, its covered as people showeed up at the event and interupted the speech by yelling. The entire message of what they yelled gets lost, because instead of making the chrge the story, they made themselves the story by their actions.

As far as the police arresting the politicians, again as a lawyer you should know the answer to this. First we cant just arrest them simply because people are pissed about what they did or what they said. Secondly, as I pointed out, not all legal remedies have been used, and some of them not even attempted.Third, if the "people" are that upset where they think that only an armed intervention is required, then that needs to start with the people.

Why do I suggest this - Because the Oath law enforcement takes, as well as the military and all publicly elected officials, is to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Not all remedies for redress of grievences have been used. Until that occurs, we are skipping a major step.

I am reasonably certain that you would be pissed if 4 of your neighbors didnt like the way you mowed your yard, and the cops showed up an dragged you out of the house. You would be even more pissed if they showed up themseleves and dragged you out of the house without any police present at all.

So I ask you to think about this, You guys are making the argument that the Government Reps have failed the people by ignoring, in your opinion, the constitution. What makes the suggested actions of the police / people arresting the government any different? By taking that action you are also ignoring the constitution - 2 wrongs make a right?

As I said, not all rmemdies have been attempted. Until those are exhaustedthose actions would be no better than the actions of the politicians you dont like.

Originally posted by Lightrule
You can point a FLIR into a house and based on a glowing hot spot decide that the persons right to personal property be destroyed. Yet hundreds of thousands of Americans are crying foul and your profession doesn't lift a finger. Mine either so really I shouldn't be the one giving you this speech.

No really we cant. That has been to the courts, suprisingly the 9th circus on the left coast, who said its a violation of the 4th amendment. Even the _xray trucks or whatever the hell they are called are a violation of the 4th amendment. Any agency doing it is in violation and any person who think ns they are affected by it, talk to a lawyer.

You also seem to be confused as to the purpose of Law Enforcement in the US. Our job is not to protect the individual, but society as a whole. Before people take this and run with it, read up on it. The goal is for the individual to run their own affairs, from abiding by the law, taking an active part in local / state and federal government. To hold the Government accountible, and to fire those who dont represent the will of the people. To challenge laws that are passed, and to remove those who voted for it even after the people did not want it.

The role of Law Enforcement is to enforce the laws the people pass in a fair but firm manner (and yeah I know, all groups have their share of morons). One of the main concerns of our founding fathers was the permanent establishment of a standing Military. They had enough of the crown as well as the troops who did what they wanted to the kings subjects. There was a lot of back and forth over this issue, which is why the unction of law enforcement was given to the states and locals and not the Federal Government.

Are the people my boss - No. It cannot work that way, and again before people come with the pitchforks and torches, let me explain why. I cannot respond to a call and have my "boss" the victim, order me to arrest her neighbor. When I go to see the neighbor, who is my "boss" tells me to arrest the other lady - See the problem coming from this.

The same goes for Sheriff's departments as well, except the people bote the sheriff in, who then does his thing to hire deputies, with a check and balance through the county commission via budget requests and what not.

The people vote on the type of government they want (Charter, home rule, etc etc). From there you elect whom you guys want to represent, who then in turn hire departments heads, including the Police Chief, and from there they hire the Officers. Our boss is the chain of command, which is the cpl all the way up to the chief, who in turns answers to the elected officals. If you guys dislike law enforcement now, imagine what would happen if everyone became our boss. You think things are political now, that would be an absolute disaster and breakdown of the system.

We are suppose to be there when you need us, and we are required to do harm on behalf of those who cant to keep them safe. Its not a black and white profession and is full of ups and downs., Personally I wouldnt trade it for anything in the world.

The society the people deserve, is the one they create themselves by active participation. Demanding the Police to do the job that apparently some people are to lazy to do themselves will only result in exchanging one dysfuntional system for another, with the added effects of confusion, loss of rule of law, discarding the Constitution and effectively removing the People and making them suibjects.

I for one like the Song God Save the Queen, but I dont advocate a return to it. It didnt work for us the first time, and it wont a second go around either.

Originally posted by Lightrule
Really what I'm trying to say here in the end is... THANK YOU for your service. However you need to be aware that you and your colleagues are screwing the pooch big time in the eyes of the awake populace. We do not see you as a protector of justice any longer but a badge wearing a gun ready to FCUK us with the long DIK of "the law" any chance you get. This has been proven time and time again.

-Lightrule

Your last thoughts here are concerning for several reasons. Law Enforcment in the United States has nothing what so ever to do with Justice. We are not part of the Judicial system, we have nothing to do with the outcome of cases that creates and injust system. You make comments you want rule of law, accountibility by the Government, and suggest that Law Enforcement should be the one to make that change, completely ignoring the fact that if the people want change, then the people need to act and quit bitching. All that does is make a person horse, pisses off others who perceive it differently, and at the end of the day, nothing changes. The following day is just like the first.

I always enjoy getting bitched at because of some law. We have nothing to do with passing them, just enforcing them, and even then its up to the Judge, PA and your defense lawyer to take it from there.

As I have said many times in many threads, what Law Enforcement does wrong makes the news, what we do right does not, and we do more right than we do wrong. We will always have people in our midst, regardless of profession, whose only purpose in life should be to serve as warnings to others.

By the way, the reason I wear a badge dates back to the Midevil times of Europe. The reason I carry a gun is not to "FCUK" with people. Its because there are people who feel they are above the law and decide they arent held accountible to anyone but themselves, and in the process of robbing whomever for wahtever just because witha gun, its not logical for law enforcement to engage them with a "badge". If you cant see this, then I refer you to Law Enforcement in England.

What I see in this thread are angry people who feel their elected officals are screwing them over, are held to a different standard, comitting acts that are in violation of our Constitution, Federal and Domestic Laws in addition to International Laws and treaties.

All perfectly valid complaints.

The other thing I see in this thread is 7+ pages of rants, snide comments about former officals, personal attacks on each other, attacks on professions, law interpretation, etc etc etc.

In the last few days since this thread was posted, how many people have made any effort at all to actually take a proactive action to resolve this?

I am going to guess that the responses we will see are:

The system doesnt work
I cant make any changes
The Government wont allow it
The Government will protect thier own
The Government will kill me
The Government we have is not real, its a NWO thing
Nothing ever changes so why try
This is all one big illusion and corporations control everything

Whats even more sad than 7 pages over 3 days of talking about this is the video that the OP posted with the people going to the party just to yell war criminals. Those people have done more in the 5 minutes than most people in these threads have done in the last few days.

Whats even worse is the actions they took, while ineffective in my opinion, will be more effective than coming into these threads to label everything a government plan to supress the people.

Take the blinders off, take your government back by participating in the system.

The failure is not with government, its with "We the People" who decided to beocme lazy, apathetic and complacent when it comes to participation.

The Police / Military cant do it for you, nor should they ever have to.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


controversy loves company. esp with him..

Originally posted by Lightrule

Absolutely, but to clarify my above response, FOIA requests are made all the time in regards to getting the documents needed to prove once and for all that yes they did break many domestic and international laws. That is why these requests are ignored. It is also why the records that would be needed to take them down in court are classified and sealed. By the time the American people get a chance to see what they can only suspect they will be long dead and it won't matter. Again I ask, what now?

Most likely because there are still ongoing programs that Obama has failed to stop when he became president, which makes the sought after records an expemtion. Use the CAT treaty to force the issue.

Can your speech be restricted while on Private Property?

Originally posted by Lightrule
No. End of story. Period. Full Stop. You can be removed from the property but no crime has been committed. Depending on behavior you could maybe argue breach of peace but that would be pretty tough. Trespassing was mentioned and this is possible as well, but considering they probably bought a ticket to the event, they weren't trespassing they paid for access.

I disagree.. Walk into a Hospital, go the the ER and yell "#" or some other word and see what happens. The reason for your removal is going to be because of what you said, which is a citeable offense because your actions caused an affront to others present.

As far as the tickets go, all it does is allow them entrance to the event. It doesnt give them any permission, whether implicit or otherwise, to be able to interupt the event so they can have their say. Again their initial removal is going to be based on their speech.

In most States when you enter private property, whether it be a house or private business that is open to the public, you can be asked to leave for absolutely no reason at all. You can also be refused service for no reason at all (unless its the race/sex etc issue).

Also - Free Speech question for you then - Since when can one persons right to free spech trump another person right to free speech?

Originally posted by Lightrule
Sorry for not answering those above.

Your fine man.. The reason I asked was to see your thought process on the issues. By the way when I ask those questions and you answer let me know if you are answering for Canadian Law or US Law, as I am sire their are some differences.

You can pick my argument apart and thats fine, but I will point out we do 2 completely seperate jobs. I issue a citation / arrest based off my investigation and what the plain speech statute states.

Whether its been refined by case law, or doesnt completely fir the crime is up to the PA to make for those charges to continue, and if they do, up to defense to argue why it should be tossed.

Either or, thanks for answering.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
You're comparing a guy in the audience calling someone a War Criminal to someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre? Wow, you have some imagination! I guess after ten years on the Police Force,

You completely missed the point. .

If you read and understood the post, in addition to the discussions prior to this post, you might have understood it. A person yelling fire in a theatre is the exact same scenario as a person yelling war criminals at a speech.

The words used are irrelevant. Its based on people purchasing a ticket to enter an event on private property (Either a movie, or the speech) giveing them both legal rights to be there. The actions taken at that point, whether it be yelling fire, or yelling war criminals, are irrelevant to what I was saying.

* - Purchasing a ticket to enter private property does not mean you can scream what you want. Their are restrictions, which goes back to some previous posts and comments made in them.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
you need an overactive imagination to keep coming up with those trumped up charges against people. Just kidding, of course.

I dont need an overactive imagination to make trumped up charges. After 10 years it comes easy to me

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Instead of that ridiculously corny USA chant, here is the song they should have played while the Bionic Dick was strolling onto the stage.

The only reason you think its corny is because you have acronym envy.. It would be pretty difficult to chant TDOC (The Dominion of Canada) and actually have people understand what the hell you are talking about.

Maple might work... Eh?

I can't believe you guys have political events like that. Its like a sports event. The chanting USA made me cringe and lol.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I liked your comments about your philosophy towards police work. Sounds like you aren't one of the bad cops who vent their frustrations and need for authority on the job. Kudos.

Thank you

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
However;

The recurring theme among most is the concept that the moment we sign a treaty, that the treay is absolute and cannot be changed / touched / refined, which is not true - it can. The deeper argument is the push to move away from laws of a country to international law without adequate regard for how those laws work if they are enforced over domestic laws.

You sound a bit more reasonable now, than the other responses that, admittedly, I caught the tail end of. But you certainly don't seem to have a grasp of international law.

Context is king.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The GENEVA CONVENTIONS, are not just any treaty -- and using "enemy non-combattant" or "their government did not sign the treaty" -- that's absolute nonsense. The Constitution is the same way; anywhere that the US has a presence, those laws of due process apply -- whether someone is a citizen or not. The Neocons aren't the first group of warmongers who used weasel words to REDEFINE people.

I think you raise good points, and I dont want to slam up another wall of text. The link here goes back to page 4, post 13 that covers exactly what you are referring to. The title of enemy combatant is not a term the US Government made up, its a term used by the UN and is defined in:

International Humanitarian Law
Geneva Conventions
Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts
International Human Rights Law
UN Convention Against Torture

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
But as soon as someone sets foot on our land -- the CONSTITUTION applies. It is NOT subject to what some other government signs or not -- or the status of the person.

The courts have actually clarified this portion. Enemy combatants have been granted basic rights, but are not entitled to all of them. Not only has the Supreme Court reviewed this, its also allowed under the Genevea Convention. An enemy combatant who does not abide by the Geneva Conventions or the Rules of Warefare are not entitled to protections those articles provide. The CAT is routinely invoked, and I will come back to this later on.

The Constitution applies only if they are remanded to Civilin Court. As the links above show, when a person is classified as an enemy combatant, the option of how they are tried falls to the nation who has custody of them, including using the laws of that country. The options for the country is to either charge / try them in civilian court, or by military tribunal using military law. The US chose military tribunal, which is sanctioned and within "International Law".

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Torture is wrong. It's bad policy. It is NOT legal under the Geneva Conventions. Following the "letter of the law" and not the spirt of it -- well, that only works if everybody else in a position to do something about it, is either as brain dead or corrupt as the people saying it. Which seems to be the state of the Union in the USA. Of course, if Obama pulled us out of Afghanistan, he'd probably last as long as JFK. The President, has to work with the possible, and he isn't really the Leader of America -- he's just more of a Game Show Host to keep our minds off of the G7 summits where the real decisions are made.

Actually torture and summary execution IS Legal under the Geneva Conventions (all the convention says is its allowed, but not condoned by the convention itself). Its covered under the Rules of Warfare and it is very specific. If soldiers conduct themselves in such a manner that they fall outside the Geneva Conventions in terms of their actions towards civilians or the opposing force, then they are not provided protection of the conventions. Also, the conventions only apply to countries who are signatories to it. An armed conflict involving a nation who is not a signatory (Afghanistan is not a signatory) they are not entitled to its protections. The Geneva convention in this area does NOT prohibit the use of torture or executions.

The Convention Against Torture, which the US is a Signature to (Afghanistan is not) states that we pledge not to emply methods of torture against captured personell.

All of these conventions are built into the UCMJ, and our soldeirs are required to abide by those terms (which is the argument people make).

What they fail to see / acknowledge for whatever reason is any treaty that is signed by the United States, does in fact make it part of our laws (actually Federal body of Law). Foreign treaties cannot grant authority to the Government that our own constitution does not grant. It also cannot over ride our Constitution, which is still the Supreme Law of the Land. This is important because once that treaty is signed and enters the body of Federal Law, its treated as any other law in the US, which means they can be challeneged or modified by court action. Check back on pg4/13 for more info you want to.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
BACK to the discussion as if Law and Justice mattered; An international treaty SUPERSEDES US law --

You are incorrect here. It does not Supercede US law. It becomes part of the body of Federal Law, and as such is subordinate to the Constitution.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
they are NOT light little suggestions and they are not to be entered into without due process.

I might not be understanding what you are saying here. Due Process of law is guaranteed under our Constitution, the CAT does not require that. All the CAT says is we cant torture, and the other UN agreements only specify civilin or military courts - The rest of left to the Nation.

**The part below, I removed soe of your comments to condense, and because its been answered above))

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The Constitution trumps ALL state and federal rules. And on top of that a TREATY trumps the Constitution.

A treaty does not trump the Constitution - Period. It is the Supreme Law of the United States, and no laws can be passed that changes that unless done by Constitutional Change / Convention itself.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
It would have been legal for Russia to invade Washington, for Bush's blatant disregard of many nuclear non-proliferation agreements (like SALT).

Actually no i wouldnt give them a green light to invade. Under President Bush, when Russian starting throwing objections up about our work on a National Missile Defense System (which was prohibited under the ABM treaty - signed in '72, US withdrew from in '02). When we withdrew from the afreement all it did was allow Russia to pursue anything the agreement prevented. Bush did not violate the NPT - which covers the sale and transfer of technology than has a dual purpose to a country with a non declared nuclear weapons program.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
However, since Bush was doing a great job destroying this country, our adversaries just shrugged and let America have all the rope it needed to hang itself. There was talk of many of these abuses -- but it never showed on CNN or Fox, so, to the public at large, it was not part of "reality." Any documentation, if not part of this "public reality" is a conspiracy theory. And, there are a few investigations of the selling of nuclear secrets to Pakistan via A Q Kahn, and that's how Iran and North Korea got a head start -- but of course, THOSE investigations have gone nowhere.

The investigation into A.Q.Khan was not under the jurisdiction of the United States, but Pakistan since he was a citizen of that country and in that country when it occured. Pakistans court system charged and tried him and found him guilty of transfering the restrcited info to other countries. In 2009 the Supreme Court of Pakistan removed him from house arrest, and allowed him free movement within pakistan. Their was a petition to free him completely, and the US objected, but its still up to Pakistan Courts.

Which by the way if we are going to invoke UN law, then we should point out that Pakistan Nuclear Weapons program falls under the same category of India and Israels. They are illegal and undeclared programs.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
China, has most of our "Military Industrial Corporations" making them cool stuff in their country these days. One day, people will wake up and realize that we were defeated by cheap trinkets and flat-screen TVs -- nobody had to invade us.

China is under a UN Arms embargo, drafted by the EU/UN and passed. The US does not sell them weapons, and any dual use technology is monitored / modifed before sale. However, I agree that China is taking over the world through economics/

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Breaking a TREATY, can be a provocation for war -- that's why treaties are made, so that countries can make agreements so they don't have to go to war over.

It depends on the treaty and the actions taken. Treaty Obligations aside, UN Charter - Chapter 7 Article 52 specifically states that nations have a fundamental right to defend themselves, and nothing the UN does can infringe on that right.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I really don't care about Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld being PROVEN war criminals. They've admitted it on TV. They at first lied about it, and then they've admitted the "harsh interrogation methods." I could go on a long list of other things they've done, where there is ENOUGH PROOF for a court to start a trial (note, you don't impeach or have a court hearing when there is ENOUGH EVIDENCE -- you impeach and stand trial when there is a crime and a reasonable suspicion).

Fair points, and I can provide information that shows they used the US court system, both winning as well as losing arguments that prevented some of their actions. As I said before check page 4 post 13 for more info on this point.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The REASON Bush and Cheney and his gang of crooks were not thrown in prison, or sent to a firing squad, probably has more to do with the rampant internal Domestic spying (which is also non-Constitutional, regardless of the Fascists who have been appointed to the Supreme Court making law out of their collective rears).

Actually its called the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity and you can thank the U.K. for that. As I said in some other posts, its one thing to continually say they did this or that, but until the masses force the reps to take action, its not going anywhere.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Now, the Bush administration had a few lawyers, create their own "interpretations" and he also added "signing agreements" to the end of Bills from Congress. A bunch of other compromised people in law enforcement, security and politics, took these signing statements as GOSPEL, and followed them. This is a flagrant breach of his powers and the separation of powers -- but it was likely ALSO possible, because this gang had broken laws and run the White House like a mob.

Actually Congress puts the laws together and passes them. Presidents can either veto and send it back, where Congress can then vote to override. If he signs it he can place whats called a signing statement onto the bill, which is published in the Congressional record for bills and is a matter of public record.

A signing Statement is the Executives branch's way of saying how the law is to be interpreted.

Congress = legislative Responsible for day to day running of the country - Makes / passes Laws
President = Executive Responsible as Head of Gvoernment / State - Enforcing laws Congress passes
Judicial = Court system. USSC can review any law they wish for constitutional issues.

All 3 have checks and balances on the other.

Law Enforcement at all levels do NOT work for the judicial branch. We are under the executive branch (responsible for enforcing laws). We do not have the authority to say this law is stupid, that belongs to the Judicial and Congress.

Bushes actions in this area are legal and within the Constitution. Bush had issues because people were complaining he used them to much. They have been around a long time before Bush, and Obama has been using them as well.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Cheney still controls what is called his "Executive Hit Squad" and he has admitted they've conducted assassinations and possibly on US soil.

Please provide links to info and verifiable sources. None of this I heard from a firend who knows thi girl who saw this guy passout while killing Ferris Beuller at 31 flavors last night.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I really don't think that ANY of what they did was for the security of the USA. I see no proof of them doing anything but a power grab. In fact, about a dozen of the top people in the Bush administration, are WANTED in many countries to stand trial -- and the Bush administration had a Diplomatic tour of all these countries, where they negotiated and threatened to put a stop to the requests for Extradition. Yes, countries like Canada, Germany, Columbia to name only a few, had subpoena's and orders to appear in court for many in the Bush administration.

Respectfully speaking I did not know you were a member of the National Security Council for the US Government. There is a LOT of stuff that does not make it down to our lvel because it can compromise sourcs and methods.

And those subpoenas are not enforceable because of the doctrine of Sovereign uImmunity. The same immunity that protects Tony Blair, as well as a few other heads of States (sweden comes to mind). The US has agreements with a lot fo countries for extradition and vice versa. Ultimately its falls on the requesting country to provide enough information for the process to either allowor refuse extradition. Those treaties are ratified by Congress.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
>> These crooks will never see the inside of a courtroom. So me, and everybody like me, are just going to forever call them the WAR CRIMINALS that they are. If these bastards want to refute these "serious charges" -- then let's go to court to prove me wrong. There are thousands of documents of a litany of crimes and abuse of power and things that don't add up. Manufacturing of evidence for war, false imprisonment without charges, a torture policy.

You certainly have that right but here is my question to you and others. Why do we wait till after the fact before taking action? Congress, which was democratically controlled for almost all of Bushes terms, could have easily brought the troops home by not only revoking the AUMF, as well as not passing the supplamental spending bills.

This is why I have issues with laying all the blame at Bushes doorsteps. There is enough blame to go around to all branches of Government, and ultimately the failure is that of the American People, for being so apathetic and not caring what their government did. We get to overthrow our Government every 2 years (congress / 4 for pres). Bush was relected by a larger majority than the first election.

People need to quit bitching and take action. Participate in government -Vote. Hold your reps accountible.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I mean, there was even a court case that was going to go against the BUSH FAMILY, for creating an estimated $17 Billion in forged federal notes. This and the ENRON investigation went up in smoke in Building 7, a month before some Bush family members would need to go to federal prison. Just one of the many coincidences in this group.

Please.. you gusy really need to come off this bldg 7 destroyed to hide crap. The evidence does not support that charges being made for 9/11. And again, if people feel so strongly against this then call your rep and demand a congressioanl investigation into the actions.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I quit bothering with the "proof" a long time ago. The TV creates a fantasy reality that people seem to adopt as the status quo. I'm somehow immune to the propaganda -- but there are still people who think that there are troops going to war to "Defend America."

The problem with this is when we stop seeking the truth, seeking answers, knowledge, then what have we really learned? This is my point, that when the going gets tough, the people go home and complain in forums about how bad it is, wishing others would change it for them.

Active participation in government, all levels and branches is what our founding fathers had in mind when they embarked on this great experiment. People must do what is tough in order to reap the rewards of their effort.

When the people dont care because its to hard, then we get what we deserve.

Sorry if the replys are long.. Good conversation though.

Thanks

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
I have a morbid desire to meet the people who cheered for Cheney. What kind of twisted and washed mind cheers for him? What kind of rock do you have to live under? How ignorant must a person be to think that Rumsfeld deserves the award?

I would say maybe less ignorant than those who think Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize..

Thats just my opinion though.

Do they give awards for being an apologist?

Originally posted by seenitall
I can't believe you guys have political events like that. Its like a sports event. The chanting USA made me cringe and lol.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

edit on 12-2-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)

They were chanting that to drowned out the people yelling war criminals...

Sports events are more entertaining.. Political events are more like a circus.. and not a good barnum and bailey circus.. A circus where your not sure where the animal hybrids came from, let alone learned how to walk and talk while showing people elephants.

The Comedian Gabreil Eglasis had it right.. Americans dont vote for President, we vote for American Idol. His suggestion was to put both the candidates on a TV program caled - "Whose gonna run this bitch" and after an hour and 30 minutes open up the phone lines..

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


I have a feeling we may be seeing a LOT more of this though, and likely MUCH worse, especially if these criminals try traveling abroad...
)

You will see more of this, however in my opinion it will not be limited to people in the Bush administration. The people are fed up. They are sick of the circle jerk we get from both parties and more people than ever are realizing that one party is no different from the other. I sure as hell would not want to be a politician right now. They do not realize it yet, but no one is safe. Aside from people who are rational and sick of the BS... there is no shortage of mental deficients in the world who will go much farther. As I consider the possibilities, I fear for them. I also fear the repercussions that will certainly come to fruition due to the real crazies of the world.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Sorry I forgot to cite part of my reply dealing with Foreign treaties and us law.

Treaty Clause - Article 2, Section 2 - Wiki
US Constitution - Article 2, Section 2

Head Money Case - Court case that established case law dealing with foreign treaties. While the Constitution does refer to treaties being the supreme law of the land, the case law estblished treaties as part of the body of Federal law.

Foreign treaties cannot grant additional authority to the Federal Government if the Constitution does not already grant it.

Sorry about that

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Also, the conventions only apply to countries who are signatories to it. An armed conflict involving a nation who is not a signatory (Afghanistan is not a signatory) they are not entitled to its protections. The Geneva convention in this area does NOT prohibit the use of torture or executions.

This is simply not true.

First of all, and contrary to what Xcathdra claims, Afghanistan is a signatory. Here, on the page of the International Committee of the Red Cross — the controlling authority of the Conventions — is the list of signatories. Afghanistan, as well as Iraq, is listed as being a signatory.

And as I’ve previously pointed out (post) the Supreme Court, in Hamdan, ruled that, at least, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the detainees of the “war on terror”—

The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character.” That reasoning is erroneous. (...)

Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not).

While perhaps other parts of the Conventions might not apply to “unlawful combatants,” Common Article 3 provides the minimum protections afforded to those not in combat, like detained persons, and Common Article 3 bans torture, unconditionally. Art. 3(1)(a)

It also prohibits “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.” Art. 3(1)(d)

Moreover, a person can only be classified an “unlawful combatant” after judgment of a competent court. “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 [those afforded POW status], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.” GCIII Art. 5

So what Xcathdra here says about torture and executions, when applied to the detainees of the “war on terror,” is simply unsupported by the facts.

What they fail to see / acknowledge for whatever reason is any treaty that is signed by the United States, does in fact make it part of our laws (actually Federal body of Law). Foreign treaties cannot grant authority to the Government that our own constitution does not grant.

What “authority” is the Geneva Conventions granting the government that the US Constitution does not?

reply to post by aptness


Afghanistan (Taliban) is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions or any other UN agreement. The link you provided is in relation to the recognized government of afghanistan, which the last time they had one was in 1953 (and 2005 now). When the Taliban took over, only 3 countries recignized them as the legitimate government. The UN does not list them as the legitimat government of afghanistna, and only lists them as a "faction".

The country of Afghanistan (Taliban / Al Queida) is not a signatory to any treaties you are referring to under the Taliban. Please do some more research.

reply to post by Xcathdra
Do you have any basis for this assertion that if a country’s government is not legitimately recognized by the international community, all the treaties made by previous governments in the name and authority of that country, go out the window? Or are you making this up as you go along?

I find it funny that you tell me to do some research when apparently you haven’t even made the effort of reading the citations I have posted. For the third time, from Hamdan—

The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum” (...)

Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not).

If I am wrong — and by consequence the Supreme Court — please provide the legal basis for your claim that, somehow, because Afghanistan’s government wasn’t recognized by the international community, the treaties previously signed in the name and authority of Afghanistan, by legitimate governments, are void.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Foreign treaties cannot grant additional authority to the Federal Government if the Constitution does not already grant it.

>> That is some twisted logic -- of COURSE a treaty cannot grant additional authority to the Fed -- and the Constitution, GRANTS authority -- "and all other rights not reserved are for the people." The real meaning of the Constitution seems to have been lost to many folks these days; basically, people have the right to EVERYTHING not spelled out as being a limited right.

The Constitution does spell out the RIGHTS of the Government and the Amendments to the Constitution -- remove powers of the Fed. Any Treaty with a foreign nation, one can assume, do NOT GRANT ANYTHING to the Federal Government -- they would limit the Fed's powers. That's to protect the rights of the people; entering into a treaty, cannot suddenly allow the government to break into your home without a court order. So, a clause in some treaty with Jamaica, for example, couldn't allow Jeb Bush to steal your land.

>> But the LAWLESSNESS in this country is epidemic. The Federal Reserve has been acting ILLEGALLY for decades because they print money. The Founders also did not want private banking. It is clearly spelled out; "Only Congress may mint coin." And you know what? All the coins in circulation are minted by congress -- but the PAPER MONEY, is printed by the reserve. It's a total end-run around the spirit of the law. When I finally understood that -- it made me realize that when Jimmy Carter started minting the "Silver Dollar" -- some "conspiracy theorists" believe that's when the banks started really working against him to cause inflation. And you know what? It makes perfect sense; if a COIN could have more value -- then perhaps a $10 coin could be minted. That would mean, we wouldn't have to RENT our money from the Fed.

A cabal of bankers, issues Federal Notes so that we can print our money. Why? Why not just print the money in relation to the growth of the GDP? This slight of hand has been reducing the value of money since it has started. It's legalized theft -- and THESE are just a few of the Institutionalized Corruptions I've been talking about; it's legal to be a crook, as long as you are a REALLY BIG CROOK.

>> Things like the "Patriot Act" are totally unconstitutional because they make our Constitution meaningless -- if they did NOT expire, it would have to be approved by 39 states and get something like 2/3rds of Congress and the Senate approving it.

Originally posted by aptness
First of all, and contrary to what Xcathdra claims, Afghanistan is a signatory.

See my answer one post above. The Taliban is not the recognized Government of Afghanistan by the UN. The "recognized" government of Afghanistan occured in 1953, which was the last time they had an officaly recognized government, and again in 2005 when they held elections and took their UN seat back and were officaly recognized.

Our "war" is not against the offical governmentment of Aghanistan, but with the Taliban / Al Queida, who are NOT signatories to any UN treaty.

Originally posted by aptness
And as I’ve previously pointed out (post) the Supreme Court, in Hamdan, ruled that, at least, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the detainees of the “war on terror”—

The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character.” That reasoning is erroneous. (...)

The substance of Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld had to do with Congressional legislation that was requested by the adminiatration to remove the US Supreme Court from having an authority over combatents captured on the BattleField, restricting them solely to Military TRibunals. As you correctly point out, the Supreme Court ruled that the UCMJ has the Genevea Conventions built into it, and that any attempt to remove the Supreme Court from the military tribunal process was illegal and not supported by any laws.

The Supreme Court ruled in the end that they, The USSC, did have jurisdiction over captured combatents and that the administration lacked authority to establish any type of military tribunal without the express authorization under law by the US Congress, because any attempt to do so violates the UCMJ.

Result -
The Courts decision did not prohibit the use of military tribuanls for captured combatants provided it is done within the confines of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions because they provided more protections that the military tribunals the Bush Administration wanted.

What you are leaving out of the Hamden Vs. Rumsfeld court case is its continuation. The Military Commision Act of 2006 was authorized by Congress and signed into law by Bush after the Supreme Court RUling on Hamden. The congressional authorization corrected the misteps the court cited as grounds to reverse the DC Circuit court ruling.

The Military Commisiuon Act of 2009 expanded more rights to captured enemy combatents and was signed into law, and USA vs. Al Qosi was the first detainee to have the amendement applied to their court action.

Respectuflly I have no issues witt you invoking Supreme Court cases to support your argument. However if you are going to do so you need to research the extension of the court cases you cite. In this case you keep coming back to Hamden, yet ignore the resulting legislation that corrected the ruling and established new guildlines that are now legal.

Originally posted by aptness
So what Xcathdra here says about torture and executions, when applied to the detainees of the “war on terror,” is simply unsupported by the facts.

1st Geneva Convention
2nd Geneva Convention
3rd Geneva Convention4th Geneva Convention

Protocol 1
Protocol 2
Protocol 3

Specifically the 3rd Geneva Convention establishes the treatment of person captured during armed conflict, and also specifically details in article 4 what exactly constitutes a Prisoner of War status.

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Again we seem to be ignoring Part II and Part III of the 3rd conventions, which cover transfer of prisoners and captivity of prisoners.

The other part you seem to forget, or ignore, is what an Unlawful Combatent is under the UN.

You must take all of this into account. Your continual targeting of the 3rd Geneva Conventions in your argument is only partially valid, because you ignore the fact that ALL of the Geneva Conventins are just part of International Humanitarian Laws (Rules of War / Laws of Armed Conflict / Laws and Customs of War).

The basic prinicple for the Rules of War is

The law is mandatory for nations bound by the appropriate treaties.

You are ignoring the rest of it which says:

There are also other customary unwritten rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. By extension, they also define both the permissive rights of these powers as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.

Under the International Humanitarian Laws (Codification), which encompass all 4 Geneva Conentions, all 3 subsequent protocols of the conventions, the Hague Convention, The Lieber Code, The ICRC, Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field and the Principle of Humanity is incumbent on signatory nations, but is not intended to act as a suicide pact when engaged in warfare gainst an entity that is not a signatory to the convenentions / rules / UN treaties or actions taken by soldiers are in violation of said treaties if they are a signatory.

And again, The war in Afghanistan is against the Taliban / Alqueida, who are NOT the recognized government. They are not sigantories to any UN treaties discussed here. The Afghan Government became officaly adopted and recognized by other countries as well as the UN in 2005. We are NOT at war with the current government of Afghanistan, but against a "faction" as the UN labeled them when the coup occured by the Taliban.

The argument you are making comes from this:

Basic rules of IHL
1.Persons hors de combat and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely.
2.It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.
3.The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
4.Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
5.No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
6.Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
7.Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.[22]

Portion highlighted / emphasized by me to highlight your argument. Again the portion you ignore comes after, under Violations, which says:

This first part is important

Violations and punishment 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.

Why? Because of this portion -

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)

The competant tribunal portion is consistent with Prisoners of War, not enemy combatants, where treaties you refer to (Genvea etc) have a completely different method for dealing with enemy combatents which places their status under the laws of the country who has them. They fall under either civilian Domestic Law, or Military Tribunal as required by UN laws.

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.

Which is non specific and again defers to the country who has them in custody. Then we move on to this portion which is paramount to the argument:

Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant.

They are already classified as terrorists as well as enemy combatants both under UN criteria and US law, both Militarily under the Military Comission Act of 2006 as well as US Domestic Law because of the Suprepe Court decisions placing the combatants under Military Law and Tribunals.

This is important because of the final section:

Depending on the circumstances, they 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 IHL, which is the governing laws for war, which encompass all 4 geneva conventions as well as the 3 protocols allow for those to be tortured / executed. It does not approve u[] NOR condemn such acts.

Originally posted by aptness
Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.

I agree the treaty says this. But again you are ignoring US Law dealing with Foireign Treaties (Treaty Clause in the Constitution) and the subsequent Supre Court case that ruled a Foreign treaty is not the suprepe Law of the land because it would violate the Constitution which says it is the Supreme Law of the Land. What occured in court was the acknowledgment of Foreighn Treaties under International Law, but moving their status to Body of Federal Law, which makes the treaty valid, and applies it to the US as Law. It also allows that treaty, or parts of it, the be challenged in US Federal Court, which is what occured with the Bush Administration. It also allowed limited forms of "torture" IE waterboarding and sleep deprivation, and any person who engaged in that activity has qualified immunity under Supreme Court rulings extending backwards prior to the court rulings.

My argument on this topic is puirely legal, that the actions taken were within the confines of US law, and in conjucntion with UN treaties, noting the exceptions the UN points out when dealing with entites who are NOT party to any UN treaties, also noting the exceptions when enemy actions violate those laws we are held to.

This is not a new concept and the reason for the nuremburg citation is because of Russia. Durring WWII they were not a signatory to the Genevea Conventions or any other treaty that governed the treament of captured soldiers.

This is why POW camps seperated prisoners of treaty countries away from those who were not. Russians face horrific POW conditions by the Germans, and at nuremburg this was specifically brought up as a defense to German actions towards Russians, which resulted in the non signatory exceptions which are present in todays laws.

From an ethical standpoint, which you have not asked me about, I think its crap. I think if the US is going to be "The Leader of the Free World" and a beacon for all, then we should take the higher road in terms of ethics, morals and our conduct around the world. Torture in my opinion does not work, and any info gleaned from it would be unreliable at best. I wont discount that we have obtained good info from torture however.

The question then becomes how do you combat an enemy who does not abide by any rules of warfare, from recognizable unofrms, to rank structure, to treatment of civilians, captured personnel?

They dont get a walk on their actions.

So now that we have picked apart US actions to a fault, lets pick apart the Taliban / Al Queida actions. Please justify to me why you want to hold the US responsible for our actions, while you completely and totally ignore Taliban / Alquieda actions. Explain to me why their conduct goes ignored by you and others when their actions are 10 times worse than those of the us?

reply to post by Xcathdra


"The courts have actually clarified this portion. Enemy combatants have been granted basic rights, but are not entitled to all of them. Not only has the Supreme Court reviewed this, "

>> You know what -- the Supreme Court, does all sorts of rulings that are fairly bogus. I consider them mostly fascist these days -- it is a court made of human beings with human failings. And some, like Clarence Thomas, more human failings and less logic than most. We almost got Harriet Myers as a "supreme court" justice -- so if they could have put some lipstick on a pig, as long as it voted for Haliburton every time, that pig would sit on our Supreme Court.

Trying to rationalize some of the Legal arguments -- well ANY legal arguments from the Bush administration, is a lesson in Weasel Logic. The Bush legal team started with concepts like; "Well, we were illegally spying and torturing, so how do we cover our Ass now?" These weren't noble ideals, or an attempt to instill wisdom -- they were 100% hindsight and started with the goal, and tried to rationalize the law -- cherry picking terms and misconstruing everything.

So, if you start with; "Well, I supported the war, and America is more or less good, and our troops are over there to protect and defend America." You started a conceptual argument built on a house of cards.

>> That's why I always start with; HOW SHOULD WE TREAT PEOPLE?
Torture, only helps despotic states. There is not ONE GOOD COUNTRY, that condones torture, and any country that does, has a lot of corruption and abuse. How we treat the least of our people, defines how good we are -- every damn time. I'm not saying that from a religious point of view -- I say that from a philosophical, humanistic, and studied point of view.

The Geneva convention says "some torture is good?" Even if it is there, we should not do it -- and every GOOD AMERICAN, should be calling out the hounds and finding SOME WAY, to put someone on trial who makes it a policy -- whether or not some Weasel Lawyer found an excuse. I'm really sick of this slippery slope and low bar of "in some cases, you know, adults understand that the world is a dangerous place, and we cannot be idealistic about..." I usually hear this from Christians, who might talk about learning from Jesus, and morals and everything and as soon as they talk foreign policy it's "Well, naive people might not know that there are folks out there who would chop your head off as soon as look at you...."

We can do better. I think I could also prove that our foreign policies over at least 6 decades has been total crap, counter-productive, and designed to enrich multinational corporations and SPEND AS MUCH AS CONCEIVABLY POSSIBLE ON DEFENSE AND CONTRACTORS.

Reagan helped to prop up the USSR by building up the military. Bush helped keep the Theocracy in power in Iran. The ONE BEST WAY, to make sure you get a hard line, pro military bad ass in power -- is to be a pro military bad ass who threatens his country.

Why do you think it's so important to highlight the "threat of 9/11" and not really point out that the "alleged" attackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and that there were more "al Qaeda" trained in Florida than Afghanistan?

>> So, why are we arguing about torture -- when it is wrong? We aren't talking about "the evil super criminal with a nuclear bomb" -- which rationalizes all arguments. We are talking about "a man suspected of being a taxi cab driver for an alleged terrorist who used to get backing from the CIA and now allegedly masterminded a terrorist attack but we cannot be bothered with tracking the credit card transactions for the alleged hijackers" -- and that dude was described as "#2 in Al Qaeda" at one time.

So, the Neocons create a totally straw man, Jack Bower scenario, where any suspect has plutonium in his pocket, and in this world where they are right, they are allowed to do the most depraved things, without oversight, and when we find they embezzled millions (as all the last 5 RNC chairman have been found guilty of), we have to shrug our shoulders and say; "You know, war is messy."

>> Torture is wrong. It's bad policy. It does not SECURE anything. And, all these people working in the shadows, have fostered every bit of blowback that the US has been dealing with. History, sense, and honor go against it -- and I think there are some legal arguments to back me up. But why are you not trying to find some reason to throw Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld in a courtroom to MAKE SURE, they have not committed war crimes?

What's the DOWNSIDE of a trial; future villains might have a disincentive to cause civil wars? I often hear Conservatives say; "You are going to dishonor our troops and make the US look bad." Yet, I constantly hear that all Liberals blame America first -- also, most Europeans and of course, anyone criticizing. Here is the BIG ISSUE: Almost everyone but well fed Capitalists and Neo Conservatives in America, already think America is NOT THAT HONORABLE. By putting Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld on trial, you would make a big statement to the world; Wow, maybe America actually walks the talk and does care about the nations they invade...

Instead, they hear excuses, see failure, and we look like the Keystone Cops of the world.

Originally posted by aptness
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Do you have any basis for this assertion that if a country’s government is not legitimately recognized by the international community, all the treaties made by previous governments in the name and authority of that country, go out the window? Or are you making this up as you go along?

Please dont make this personal. I have not made anything up and have provided links to all the sources I have been using.

In order for an agreement to be legally binding, the Governments who signed those treaties agree to certain terms. When aGovernment is removed from power via a Coup, the agreements become null and void because:

A - The legitimate government who signed the agreement is no longer in power
B - The transfer of power occured outside of estbalished and recognized legal methods
C - When the Government who assumes power is not officaly recognized as the Government, they are not held to the agreements since they are not the offical Government.

A Government who is not legally recognized cannot leggaly make changes to any treaties signed by the legitimate government, which means their actions will not be in compliance with any external treaties, including that of the UN. In the case of Afghanistan, the government who signed the accors was last in power in 1953. Since then there has been no officaly recognized Government of Afghanistan by the UN.

Based on your argument that Afghanistan IS a signatory to the UN conventions, then, again, why have you not been screaming for their people to be held liable for wr crimes and other violations, since they are in blatant violation of said agreements?

And as I pointed out before, when 1 countriy violates those agreements, even if they are signatories, they loose the protections of the geneva accords and the injured country can retaliate in kind.

If the UN offically recognized the Coup and subsequent new government as legitimate, then they would hold the Afghan seat at the UN and would be able to take action through them. The UN did not allow this, labeling the coup leaders as a faction and not a government.


Also as a side note to people who continally argue the Taliban had nothing to do with turning bin laden over, or arguing the US never allowed enough time for that to occur, should do some research on this.

The UN initiated sanctions on the Taliban in 1999 for their refusal to expel Osamab Bin Laden from their country, and Pakistan actually seized all assets in their country belonging to Afghanistan because of that.

reply to post by Xcathdra

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.

To which you replied;

Which is non specific and again defers to the country who has them in custody.

I could seriously "google" a lot of arguments and legal opinions -- but the EXCEPTION, you talk about with transferred prisoners, or non-signatory countries, in no way ALLOWS for what was done to our prisoners. What we need is some SPECIFIC clause that states you can Waterboard someone, not bring them to trial, and hand custody to a third-party because you WANT TO IGNORE HUMAN RIGHTS. Have I lost anyone so far?

Sending prisoners to a third-party country, putting them on a boat, leaving them in GitMo so they aren't on US soil -- these are all attempts to GET AROUND HUMAN RIGHTS and the SPIRIT OF THE LAW. "Malice aforethought." In the REAL WORLD, using intermediaries makes the Bush administration MORE GUILTY. If this were an ACTUAL court case -- the defendant, would be likely to be shown to have CRIMINAL INTENT, because they acted in a way to skirt the laws.

If you use 10 transactions of $1,000, rather than one transaction of $10,000 so that you hide a big movement of money -- simply doing that can get you in trouble, it's called "Structuring." Why is it, that I can get more time in prison for merely attempting to look like I'm up to no good, than Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld get for having a few million people's blood on their hands and not one good excuse for it?

>> WE don't need to be using "subjective" or relative hypotheticals here -- we have actual EVENTS to talk about. The "Taliban" is merely a quasi-religious and tribal group in Afghanistan -- it's like saying; "The Protestants in Ireland are not signatories to any Treaties." Our US troops come from a country that IS A SIGNATORY -- it doesn't matter who we invade -- WE have a duty to human rights.

>> The war was based on a bogus premise -- so again, in the REAL WORLD, the "Combatant" is a term that isn't even proven. What we have is goat herders and taxi cab drivers who were given to us to get a bounty equivalent to ten years of income in Afghanistan. Whatever legal status the Bush administration tries to apply to their prisoners, is based on PRETENDING, that these people are GUILTY of whatever they are assumed to be guilty of -- WITHOUT A TRIAL, or CHARGES.

>> See, here is that amazing EXCEPTION to the Geneva Conventions;

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.

Nowhere does it state, that you can throw them in a hole for 5 years, and fill them full of drugs, waterboard them, make them fear for their lives, and even after hostilities have ended -- warp their minds and bodies so much that many have to be forced to NOT KILL THEMSELVES.

You also need to show us WHERE ARE THE BAD GUYS? Most of these "detainees" have been let go, or cannot be tried because they are basket cases -- and those are only the ones we know about. Missing are the unmarked graves, the torture boats floating around, the people in other countries screaming until their throats break. We don't have ONE CONVICTION of a real terrorist threat that is LEGAL. We almost had one trial -- but the evidence was all obtained via torture, and the guy wore a shock vest -- not exactly a trial you'd think would take place in America.