I know some Democrats who didn't like the fact that he sided with Republicans on a few issues...ghettoperson wrote:
Do Democrats actually consider Clinton to be a great president? Or is it one of those things like how all liberals support OBL?
If moral high ground is more important to you than killing the fuckers.Dilbert_X wrote:
- You might be then able to occupy the moral high ground, instead of wading around in the sewage wrestling with AQ.And just why should we do that?
Just how are the troops in Iraq "currently unlawful combatants"? They are following GC guidelines. The contractors on the other hand are in a very precarious personal position with regard to the GC...much like the insurgents themselves. Yet another reason I don't like them.- You might then have some grounds for complaint when your troops - currently unlawful combatants in Iraq, and your mercenary 'contractors' get dismembered.
Maybe a year ago. Things are much different now.- Nobody gave a toss who won in the Iraq-Iran war, the protagonists were as bad as each other. Now the US is in about the same position - which can't be in your long or short term interests.
Until the Iraq war, world opinion was on our side because of those attacks. Yes, there is fence-mending to do, and it is occurring. It will take a while to get back.- Next time a bunch of nuts wipe out your commercial buildings the rest of the world might care, instead of assuming you provoked it by your own illegal actions and leaving you to sort it out for yourselves.
You and a couple of others on BF2S does not equate to "(every)body outside the US". There are many categories other than "combatant" and "criminal" under the GC. It's not a "loophole". It's crystal clear.Dilbert_X wrote:
A few of us have been through that with you already.What am I saying?! YOU don't need to read it and bother with those pesky facts and whatnot. You're a self-proclaimed GC scholar, after all.
Just because some weasel lawyer reckons he has found a loophole in the Geneva Convention and the UNCHR - which nobody outside the US believes exists - doesn't make it either legal or the morally right thing to do.
Read the damn thing, Dilbert.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Suit yourself, just quit whining when other groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas according to you, don't follow the GC.If moral high ground is more important to you than killing the fuckers.
'Killing the fuckers' just generates more of them through radicalisation. AQ probably numbered in the few hundreds at the start. How is Afghanistan going these days?
The US was not attacked by Iraq, Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US or its 'interests', Iraq was completely unconnected with AQ or 9/11, there was no UN mandate for an invasion, the US agreed to seek a mandate and reneged on that commitment, the invasion was illegal.Just how are the troops in Iraq "currently unlawful combatants"?
The 'contractors' certainly are unlawful combatants, funny the US gripes about the other side and employs them itself.
See we can agree on somethingUntil the Iraq war, world opinion was on our side because of those attacks. Yes, there is fence-mending to do, and it is occurring. It will take a while to get back.
All the positive sentiment the US had has been thoroughly squandered and then reversed by a bunch of evil pea-brained Neo-cons.
Abducting, torturing and killing people who are protected by human rights conventions is going to postpone any recovery.
Until then you're level pegging with Iran.
Not really, the US has lost its international credibility.Things are much different now.
'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, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.'
As this has not been done the actions of the US are illegal.
'Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited'
I'm not sure why anyone would be so keen to deviate from this, its morally repugnant and has been totally counterproductive for the US so whats the point?
Anyone not covered by the Geneva Convention is in any case covered by the UNCHR.
But no matter, they are protected under the US constitution, which the weasel lawyers reckoned didn't apply either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-09-11 03:29:10)
Fuck Israel
"Killing the fuckers" and following the GC are not mutually exclusive. The US follows the GC. Hezbollah and Hamas don't.Dilbert_X wrote:
Suit yourself, just quit whining when other groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas according to you, don't follow the GC.If moral high ground is more important to you than killing the fuckers.
'Killing the fuckers' just generates more of them through radicalisation. AQ probably numbered in the few hundreds at the start. How is Afghanistan going these days?
Afghanistan is going better than is being reported in the media. They just don't have doom and gloom in Iraq to report on anymore.
The invasion was not illegal. Just because you don't agree with it being in defense of US interests doesn't mean it wasn't. Your attempt to portray the invasion as illegal and the US troops there as "unlawful combatants" simply fails.Dilbert_X wrote:
The US was not attacked by Iraq, Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US or its 'interests', Iraq was completely unconnected with AQ or 9/11, there was no UN mandate for an invasion, the US agreed to seek a mandate and reneged on that commitment, the invasion was illegal.Just how are the troops in Iraq "currently unlawful combatants"?
As does Iraq. And their status has certainly changed of late, now hasn't it?Dilbert_X wrote:
The 'contractors' certainly are unlawful combatants, funny the US gripes about the other side and employs them itself.
Hardly. We haven't hung any homosexuals or stoned any adulterous women of late.Dilbert_X wrote:
See we can agree on something smileUntil the Iraq war, world opinion was on our side because of those attacks. Yes, there is fence-mending to do, and it is occurring. It will take a while to get back.
All the positive sentiment the US had has been thoroughly squandered and then reversed by a bunch of evil pea-brained Neo-cons.
Abducting, torturing and killing people who are protected by human rights conventions is going to postpone any recovery.
Until then you're level pegging with Iran.
Torture is alleged, but unproven. But don't let pesky facts like that or your unequal use of "innocent until proven guilty" bother you.
I was referring to the Iraq situation specifically. Don't take my words out of context and attempt to bend their meaning.Dilbert_X wrote:
Not really, the US has lost its international credibility.Things are much different now.
Hmmm...and there aren't tribunals going on right now? Seems like it HAS been done. Your argument is invalid.Dilbert_X wrote:
'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, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.'
As this has not been done the actions of the US are illegal.
Which prisoners have had death caused to them or had their health seriously endangered and the offending party not been investigated and prosecuted? None.Dilbert_X wrote:
'Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited'
I'm not sure why anyone would be so keen to deviate from this, its morally repugnant and has been totally counterproductive for the US so whats the point?
Yeah...aren't checks and balances wonderful? But those don't exist in the US, according to you. Just blind neo-cons frothing at the mouth for A-rab blood. Your inconsistencies don't even register with you, do they?Dilbert_X wrote:
Anyone not covered by the Geneva Convention is in any case covered by the UNCHR.
But no matter, they are protected under the US constitution, which the weasel lawyers reckoned didn't apply either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular