Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Making up our own Rules

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Making up our own Rules

    A Degrading Policy
    Wednesday, January 26, 2005; Page A20
    ( all boldface added by me)

    ALBERTO R. GONZALES was vague, unresponsive and misleading in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Bush administration's detention of foreign prisoners. In his written answers to questions from the committee, prepared in anticipation of today's vote on his nomination as attorney general, Mr. Gonzales was clearer -- disturbingly so, as it turns out. According to President Bush's closest legal adviser, this administration continues to assert its right to indefinitely hold foreigners in secret locations without any legal process; to deny them access to the International Red Cross; to transport them to countries where torture is practiced; and to subject them to treatment that is "cruel, inhumane or degrading," even though such abuse is banned by an international treaty that the United States has ratified. In effect, Mr. Gonzales has confirmed that the Bush administration is violating human rights as a matter of policy.

    Mr. Gonzales stated at his hearing that he and Mr. Bush oppose "torture and abuse." But his written testimony to the committee makes clear that "abuse" is, in fact, permissible -- provided that it is practiced by the Central Intelligence Agency on foreigners held outside the United States. The Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994, prohibits not only torture but "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment." The Senate defined such treatment as abuse that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th amendments to the Constitution -- a standard that the Bush administration formally accepted in 2003.

    But Mr. Gonzales revealed that during his tenure as White House counsel, the administration twisted this straightforward standard to make it possible for the CIA to subject detainees to such practices as sensory deprivation, mock execution and simulated drowning. The constitutional amendments, he told the committee, technically do not apply to foreigners held abroad; therefore, in the administration's view the torture treaty does not bind intelligence interrogators operating on foreign soil. "The Department of Justice has concluded," he wrote, that "there is no legal prohibition under the Convention Against Torture on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to aliens overseas."

    According to most legal experts, this is a gross distortion of the law. The Senate cited the constitutional amendments in ratifying the treaty precisely to set a clear standard that could be applied to foreigners. Nevertheless, Mr. Gonzales uses this false loophole to justify practices that contravene fundamental American standards. He was asked if there were any legal prohibition against U.S. personnel using simulated drowning and mock executions as well as sleep deprivation, dogs to inspire fear, hooding, forced nudity, the forced injection of mood-altering drugs and the threat of sending a detainee to another country for torture, among other abuses. He answered: "Some might . . . be permissible in certain circumstances."

    This is not a theoretical matter. The CIA today is holding an undetermined number of prisoners, believed to be in the dozens, in secret facilities in foreign countries. It has provided no account of them or their treatment to any outside body, and it has allowed no visits by the Red Cross. According to numerous media reports, it has subjected the prisoners to many of the abuses Mr. Gonzales said "might be permissible." It has practiced such mistreatment in Iraq, even though detainees there are covered by the Geneva Conventions; according to official investigations by the Pentagon, CIA treatment of prisoners there and in Afghanistan contributed to the adoption of illegal methods by military interrogators.

    In an attempt to close the loophole, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) sought to attach an amendment to the intelligence reform legislation last fall specifying that "no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." The Senate adopted the provision unanimously. Later, however, it was stripped from the bill at the request of the White House. In his written testimony, Mr. Gonzales affirmed that the provision would have "provided legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled." Senators who supported the amendment consequently face a critical question: If they vote to confirm Mr. Gonzales as the government's chief legal authority, will they not be endorsing the systematic use of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" practices by the United States. ?



    2005 The Washington Post




    It is very disturbing to me that our President and his choice for the top legal spot in the nation support, allow and even encourages violations of the Geneva Rules. This type of thing just makes the U.S look( even more) like a big bunch of hypocrites. I want Bush and many others charged and tried as war criminals because that is exactly what they are, imo. I don't see how anyone with a heart or soul ( or even a logical mind since it makes no sense to torture others and then expect them not to do the same to Americans) can still support this horrible, horrible man and his pet policies-- ie murder, destruction and discrimination.

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    again a little journalistic balance might be in order ...

    , and especially ...



    It never ceases to amaze me how liberals are now grasping at straws in order to denounce GWB's appointments of an extremely well qualified black woman and an extremely well qualified hispanic to some of the very highest positions of power, when for decades they have advocated allowing blacks, women and hispanics into these very positions with much lower standards in regard to relative qualifications ! This would indeed appear to be an extreme case of liberals BREAKING their own rules, not merely making up new rules as they go along !

  3. #3
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    The Geneva Convention rules were designed to protect members of waring nation's uniformed armed forces. In fact, if a solider removes his uniform and puts on civilian clothes he basically gives up any protection under the Geneva Convention. The rules do not, nor were they ever intended to protect terrorists. At the heart of ever single terrorist you will find a coward. Think about it, there are various muslim groups that don't like the presence of the U.S. in Iraq. Well fine, so what do they do? Do they mass an army in Syria, march in and drive the U.S. forces out? No, they know good and well, that a few platoons of marines would wipe them out in an afternoon. So what do these brave, "freedom fighters" do? They wage war on innocent civilians, blowing up car bombs in front of schools. Questions like Iraq, Israel, the palestinians are things people can honestly disagree on. But I have nothing but comtempt for these gutless terrorists that take their fight to innocent people. They are not deserving of protection under geneva convention. In my opinion, the biggest mistake the Bush Administration made in Iraq was stating that everyone there would be covered by the geneva convention.

    As far as the, "The Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994". Well, a basic government class will tell you that the Bush Administration is not doing anything illegal. The constitution gives the Senate the power to ratify treaties. It does not give the senate the power to negotiate treaties. That power is left to the president. The senate ratified the treaty. They cannot make up their own definitions as the they tried to do when they, "defined such treatment as abuse that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th amendments to the Constitution". What if the U.S. signed a treaty with Mexico, then Mexico said, we accept the treaty, but here's how we are going to define it....
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  4. #4
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    It's totally REVOLTING to me that anyone could describe complaints and concerns about state supported torture as grasping at straws. That idea shows that some people have no problem with torture and anyone who feels that way has pure evil within them.

    If we do not adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention we have NO right to complain when other do the same. If torture is wrong, then it is wrong for all people not just some people some times. Either you support torture or you do not. There is no middle ground. None.

    If someone does not oppose torture then they are no better than a terrorist. And for an American to not oppose torture is even worse because it is total and complete act of hypocrisy in word and deed-- and that is why so many people in the world have come to hate Americans becauseas a nation we often do one thing and say another.

  5. #5
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
    If we do not adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention we have NO right to complain when other do the same. If torture is wrong, then it is wrong for all people not just some people some times. Either you support torture or you do not. There is no middle ground. None.
    If the logic is applied equally, then no inhabitant of Iraq has the right to complain about anything happening within their country, given their history of gas warfare, torture, and mass executions. I'm not saying anything other than that. Just a thought.

    I would say there is middle ground on the issue, because what some people see as torture, others would not. What some people might do in an emergency situation to get information would run counter to their nature in a less emergent environment. I'm sorry, but we'll just disagree on that, and it reflects our personalities - I see you as a black/white person on issues, and I see myself in shades of gray on them.

  6. #6
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    It never ceases to amaze me how liberals are now grasping at straws in order to denounce GWB's appointments of an extremely well qualified black woman and an extremely well qualified hispanic to some of the very highest positions of power, when for decades they have advocated allowing blacks, women and hispanics into these very positions with much lower standards in regard to relative qualifications ! This would indeed appear to be an extreme case of liberals BREAKING their own rules, not merely making up new rules as they go along !
    Problem is that GWB is filling these positions with people that will go along smoothly with him. With no one to bounce ideas off of who will denouince what should be denounced. We will get only more of the same, only moreso. and that's quite a bit too much.

    Trying to justify puppet appointments with skin color, gender, etc. is just cynical and more supportive of a bad unidirectional situation. If we do not have, or allow, discussions from the top down starting at the Cabinet level, this is more approaching a dictatorship than a democracy. And we were worried about Nixon.

    The Us democracy will win out, as always, but we being damaged from internal dissention and are losing international support faster than the Fed budget surplus is disappearing.
    Last edited by threlayer; 01-29-2005 at 02:31 PM.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  7. #7
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer
    Problem is that GWB is filling these positions with peopole that will go along smoothly with him.
    As opposed to what other Presidential appointments, ever? A reasonable goal of any President is to appoint qualified people to carry out the President's programs and vision.

  8. #8
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    JZ, of course not.

    However, we have not have had a President who has been such a religious evangelist, has been so opinionated and single-minded, has been apparently so reluctant to think instead of use "gut feelings", has been so isolated from the rest of the world and not care, has not shown any brilliance at all, and who has simultaneously officiated at a time which is so domestically dangerous (enemies of true liberty within and without).

    It cries out for well-considered approaches and a decisive leader. So far all I see is that we have a decisive leader. But that is NOT enough. Closest I can recall to this desired situation is Kennedy in the scarey Cuban missle crisis in late 1962.

    And George Bush is no Jack Kennedy.
    Last edited by threlayer; 01-29-2005 at 03:29 PM.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  9. #9
    God/dess
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,352
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    We seem to gear the cruel and unusual punishment in a setting of being captured ( that is in fact how it is written ) but put me on a battlefield and is this not the same as the later. I am waiting for my very cruel and unusual punishment in a form of a bullet bomb etc . The same guy you are holding captive may have earlier shot your best friend even possibly had you in his own gun sight but this is okay ?? I think we should treat prisoners with respect to there well being but if information is being held back that could possibly save the lives of many of our own men , I dont know it would be a tough call in my opinion .I hate war I wish it would just go away like everyone else but there are far too many haters in this world for that to ever happen .

  10. #10
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    However, we have not have had a President who has been such a religious evangelist, has been so opinionated and single-minded, has been apparently so reluctant to think instead of use "gut feelings", has been so isolated from the rest of the world and not care, has not shown any brilliance at all, and who has simultaneously officiated at a time which is so domestically dangerous (enemies of true liberty within and without).
    Congratulations; you just described the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, who was vilified while he was in office for the exact same reasons you describe.

    There are very few things in politics that are truly unprecedented, just people who don't know their history.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  11. #11
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    I described GWB. Lincoln was arguably our best president. We went thru our indesputably most tragic times with him as leader. Few, if any and probably none, think of Lincoln in those terms today.

    No way will GWB ever be considered as such, even if he gets us out of Iraq without our tails between our legs.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Many of the people in these detainment camps are not terrosit or terros supporters . Many are just petty theives or even just those who had no where else to go but weren't allowed to stay where ther were-- Bush has encouraged the torture of people like that as well as terrorist. He appears to view all Iraqi people the same no matter what. Those who do not kiss his ass are target practice.

    BTW- alot of the soliders and higher ups also hate this war and Bush for creating it - this is according to my uncle who is Lt. Col in the legal field and was in Turkey and Iraq not that long ago and who was also in the Pentagon when it was hit. He is deeply ashamed of the actions of the US government. I also have other faimly members who are over there this minute who hate what they are being forced to do as members of the military- which they used to be proud to be part of, but not now.

    Bush and Co. have put a shameful stain on the US that will take decades to wash away.

  13. #13
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer
    I described GWB. Lincoln was arguably our best president. We went thru our indesputably most tragic times with him as leader. Few, if any and probably none, think of Lincoln in those terms today.

    No way will GWB ever be considered as such, even if he gets us out of Iraq without our tails between our legs.
    If Iraq works out, I'll bet there will be a statue of him there.

    Lincoln was our best president. He was also a president when the country was at odds with it's self. Lets hope it never gets to the point of another Gettysburg.

  14. #14
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousJ
    We seem to gear the cruel and unusual punishment in a setting of being captured ( that is in fact how it is written ) but put me on a battlefield and is this not the same as the later. I am waiting for my very cruel and unusual punishment in a form of a bullet bomb etc . The same guy you are holding captive may have earlier shot your best friend even possibly had you in his own gun sight but this is okay ?? I think we should treat prisoners with respect to there well being but if information is being held back that could possibly save the lives of many of our own men , I dont know it would be a tough call in my opinion .I hate war I wish it would just go away like everyone else but there are far too many haters in this world for that to ever happen .
    That was the purpose of the Geneva Convention - to stop the spiralling down to the lowest behavior for those involved.

    Once that point is reached, the argument will hit a critical point and never really go away.

    Take for example that Israel and the Palestinians will never find peace because the two sides have done such things to each other it will take generations to forget - if it is ever allowed to be in the past.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Deogol makes an excellant point above.

    For those who say that the Geneva doesn't apply to terrorist- please show me where in the Geneva it says that? I'm looking at it right now and I don't see that anywhere.

    I think that idea is just a fabulous example of "making up our own rules"

    Also people might want to remember that not all those being tortured are terrorist. There are also petty theives in these detainment camps as well as those who just got run out of their homes by our scatter bombs and such and ended up there without being guilty of any crime at all . And yet some of support these people being tortured as well.

    How very kind of you - NOT !

  16. #16
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    It's not a matter of "the Geneva Convention." If the US is at war with a country that is not
    a signatory to whatever treaty, then the treaty doesn't come into play. In this case
    we are not even dealing with a "country" just people acting independently of any real state.
    So there are no rules to ignore or make up. This discussion is superfluous.

    BTW there is no single Geneva Convention (here's some history):
    "The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

    These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.

    In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.

    The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in 1954, the United Nations Convention on Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques followed in 1977, together with two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extending their protections to civil wars.

    There is no one 'Geneva Convention.' Like any other body of law, the laws of war have been assembled piecemeal, and are, in fact, still under construction."

    Note some of the agreements above pre-date the formation of the UN.

    See the link
    http://www.genevaconventions.org/
    for more. Especially note the part about distinguishing between combatants and civilians
    and the benefits it has for each group. If you classify terrorists as mercenaries, they
    are explicity excluded no matter who signed what. If a combatant violates the rules,
    then they are NOT covered. Terrorists are obviously combatants but don't wear
    uniforms, etc. in violation of the rules, so they aren't covered. It's pretty clear.

    With regard to the 1949 Geneva Conventions III and IV (which went into force in 1950) about
    the treatment of POWs as well as the 1977 protocols (effective in 1979), note that while all 192
    UN countries and NGOs have ratified the 1949 convention in one way or another, only about
    160 countries have ratified both 1977 protocols which apply to civil wars. Some countries
    didn't ratify the 1949 convention until the late 1990s. Other signed in the 1950's but
    didn't much abide by it (like North Korea).

    Note also that President Clinton DID NOT always support the applicability of the conventions
    either.

    Of course, I'm not saying the US should torture anyone, just that in this case it's not a matter of
    International rules... just our own moral values.
    Last edited by myssi; 01-30-2005 at 03:08 AM.

  17. #17
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Oh, I wanted to add to the above post that the US never ratified the 1977 protocols...
    no, not under the Carter or Clinton administrations either. And the 1949 Convention was
    ratified in 1955 by the US with reservations.
    Canada didn't ratify the 1977 protocols until 1990 (with reservations).

  18. #18
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    It's not a matter of "the Geneva Convention." If the US is at war with a country that is not
    a signatory to whatever treaty, then the treaty doesn't come into play. In this case
    we are not even dealing with a "country" just people acting independently of any real state.
    So there are no rules to ignore or make up. This discussion is superfluous.

    BTW there is no single Geneva Convention (here's some history):
    "The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

    These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.

    In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.

    The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in 1954, the United Nations Convention on Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques followed in 1977, together with two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extending their protections to civil wars.

    There is no one 'Geneva Convention.' Like any other body of law, the laws of war have been assembled piecemeal, and are, in fact, still under construction."

    Note some of the agreements above pre-date the formation of the UN.

    See the link

    for more. Especially note the part about distinguishing between combatants and civilians
    and the benefits it has for each group. If you classify terrorists as mercenaries, they
    are explicity excluded no matter who signed what. If a combatant violates the rules,
    then they are NOT covered. Terrorists are obviously combatants but don't wear
    uniforms, etc. in violation of the rules, so they aren't covered. It's pretty clear.

    With regard to the 1949 Geneva Conventions III and IV (which went into force in 1950) about
    the treatment of POWs as well as the 1977 protocols (effective in 1979), note that while all 192
    UN countries and NGOs have ratified the 1949 convention in one way or another, only about
    160 countries have ratified both 1977 protocols which apply to civil wars. Some countries
    didn't ratify the 1949 convention until the late 1990s. Other signed in the 1950's but
    didn't much abide by it (like North Korea).

    Note also that President Clinton DID NOT always support the applicability of the conventions
    either.

    Of course, I'm not saying the US should torture anyone, just that it's not a matter of
    International rules... just our own moral values.
    Thats a nice little history lesson.

    But I don't recall saying anything about the Geneva Convention applying in the war on terrorism (although the UCMJ obviously applies) - I just pointed out that the convention was made to limit the barbarism of war .

    I think the terrorists have pretty much videotaped what American soldiers can expect in terms of treatment from "the enemy."

  19. #19
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Incidentally, the Washington Post article confuses the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" (adopted in 1984 as UN General Assembly Resolution 39/46 [annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984)] entered into force June 26, 1987 and ratified in 1994 by the US with reservations) with "the Geneva Convention".
    They are two different international convenants and Iraq never signed nor ratified that 1984 convention in spite of what the article may imply.
    There is also the UN GA Resolution adopted in 1975 (3452) which I don't think the
    either the US nor Iraq ever agreed to.
    Note also that the 14th Amendment to the US Consitution covers only those persons
    under US jurisdiction ....they don't have to be citizens but foriegn prisoners arguablly are not
    subject to its protections.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    The US agreed to the Geneva and now we are violating it and commiting war crimes.

    Bush and Co. need to be put in jail for their crimes- imo.
    Last edited by Lena; 01-30-2005 at 11:10 PM.

  21. #21
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    How funny is it than an educated person believes unquestioningly anything they read.
    The word propaganda comes to mind.

  22. #22
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    How funny it is to me that a person posting here thinks they know more than one of the most respected newspapers in the country
    How funny you believe that people respect the traditional and flagrant editorial bias of the WP.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  23. #23
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Right, the item posted was an *Editorial* from the Washington Post... not a news story.
    If it had been a news story it would have flunked Journalism 101 for including obvious opinion.

    Note the Washington Post is the same newspaper that in 1981 published Janet Cooke's bogus
    stories about an 8-year-old heroin addict ("Jimmy") in the District of Columbia... only one small detail proved inaccurate: There was no 8-year-old heroin addict. She'd made the whole thing up.
    So can we believe EVERYTHING we read in this most respected bastion of truth?
    Shortly before committing suicide Post publisher Philip Graham once called journalism "the first
    draft of history". Perhaps that's they way they do it at the Post.

    It's a common debate strategy to call someone names if you can't counter their argument.
    Another one is to attribute false opinions to a challenger in order to easily knock them down.

    So, I'm just ignorant. I'm a dumb blonde who supports torture/murder supposedly. But look at
    the record... I'm against torture of course. The terrorists who behead innocents are the
    victims here, those who oppose them are the baddies... huh???

    Is the un-named editor writing the WP piece someone who's specialized in these legal issues or
    just a J-school grad? Did I actually claim to know more than this anonymous writer of
    this "respected" newspaper? No. So why say I did?
    Is the editorial writer more qualified than Gonzales to be Attorney General? I don't think so.

    The real point of this thread concerned 'making up rules'. If the WP editorial is to be accepted
    as gospel, then what is there to discuss? I guess real discussion was never the objective
    after all.

  24. #24
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    Hmmmm....do I think a terrorist that is a member of a group plotting to fly jumbo jets into crowded office buildings should be given a nice warm jail cell with three meals a day? No, I don't. As I said before, by definition a terrorist is someone who has made a conscious decision to wage his war on innocent civilians. In making that decision he also decided to forego any protections any internationl treaties might provide him. Finally I don't remember Al Qaeda signing on to the Geneva Convention or any of the other treaties mentioned here.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  25. #25
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Making up our own Rules

    But the US DID sign te Geneva and now we are VIOLATING it. Show me where in the Geneva it says that terrorist are not covered. You can't because it is not there.

    It is making up our own rules to say they don't count. Also not all those being tortured and/or other suffering violations of the Geneva. Some are petty theives others are just displaced people. How can any of you support someone like a car theif or someone who is guilty of no crime except being poor being tortured?

    And please tell me how it is logical to expect others to abide by the Geneva for our own POW's yet not honor it ourselves.

    Tell me how it's logical to say the Geneva applies to everyone else who signed EXCEPT us ????????????????????????????

    Don't you people get it? YOU ARE SAYING THAT TORTURE IS OK?

    made a conscious decision to wage his war on innocent civilians.
    ^ just like GW- who is GUILTY of war crimes.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-16-2009, 08:59 AM
  2. So what are the rules (OR)
    By Camillian in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:53 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2007, 05:44 AM
  4. The Rules
    By Yekhefah in forum Junkie Club Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-12-2006, 09:19 PM
  5. rules in the us
    By keeley in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2004, 04:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •