A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"President Must Answer to Downing Street Memo"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 18th 05, 10:10 PM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rand Simberg wrote:
No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being
treated according to Geneva despite that.



This from a citizen of the USA whose constitution grants the right to
all citizens to bear arms to defend their country.

Sorry folks, there are no "unlawful combattants". No matter how
justified the military intervention in Afghanistan was, Afghans had full
rights to defend their country against an invading military force.


The Bush regime just invented thsi phrase and trying to justify their
war crimes. Oh, and by the way, the USA constitution also grants legal
rights/due legal process to PEOPLE, not citizens. The people at
gantanamo, while being treated like animals, should have been given due
legal process by the USA, charged with a crime, provided with a proper
court (not some judicial military kangoroo court) and tried within
reasonable time.

The Bush regime managed to convince americans that because they were not
USA citizens, they didn't have any rights.

And if they were unlawful combattants, then the folks who had had roots
in the USA should have been treated the exact same way asn the others.
Legal rights are granted to people, not american citizens. And americans
were gullible enough to believe their government, the media in love with
the white house never wishing to contradict what the white house says,
and americans only wanting to hear the newas that want to hear, not the
news they need to hear.
  #22  
Old June 18th 05, 10:20 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
Going to war under knowingly false pretenses, wasting 1,700+ soldiers'
lives and about $300 billion, doubling the domestic price of fuel and
strangling the economy due to energy prices


You've been watching too much PBS. The US economy is in the best shape it's
been in years. *After* recent tax cuts, the government reached a new record
in tax receipts.

and federal deficits should
easily qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under any reasonable
definition.


The idea that there is a "budget surplus", as long as we have a national
debt, is laughable. Watching those Congressional clowns talk about "applying
the surplus to the debt" would have been funny if it didn't involve lives.

A surplus exists only so long as, after the debts are paid off, you can
write a check that doesn't bounce.


  #23  
Old June 18th 05, 10:29 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
It is...in wartime...we haven't legally declared war on anyone yet; if
we had, then all those poor shmucks down at Guantanamo Bay would be POWs
and subject to their rights under the Geneva Conventions...and we
wouldn't want that, would we?


I have no lost love for those stuck in Gitmo. Still, we're supposed to be
the good guys, and one thing that separates the good guys from the bad guys
is that the good guys *don't break the rules* or hire others to break them
for us. If the rules are inconvenient, then change them, using proper
procedure, in the full light of public review. If the government ships
someone off to another country so that person can be interrogated under
torture, it's no different than if my government itself did the torture.

I don't have a real problem with torture- my problem is with my government
denying that the United States is responsible, and that my country agreed to
rules prohibiting it. Either break the Geneva Convention or follow it.

Part of the blame lies with those in Gitmo- if they want to fall under the
Geneva Convention, then they need to follow the rules as well, part of which
calls for fighting while wearing clearly identified *uniforms*. Still,
that's not enough for my government to justify it's actions, particularly to
American citizens, such as Padilla. Whether or not the little **** deserves
it, as a US citizen the government *owes him* certain things, such as a
speedy trial and the right to an attorney. Gitmo is a US military base,
which makes it US soil- claiming otherwise sets a dangerous precedent that
will come back to bite.


  #24  
Old June 18th 05, 11:01 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



John Doe wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:


No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being
treated according to Geneva despite that.




This from a citizen of the USA whose constitution grants the right to
all citizens to bear arms to defend their country.



Remember how the NRA always talks about how dictators always disarm
their populace as their first evil act?
In Saddam's Iraq, every household had the right to own one firearm for
self defense; the weapon of choice was a full-auto AK-47, a weapon which
would require a background check and license from the BATF to own in the
U.S.
So there appears to be something wrong with the NRA's argument in this
matter.

Sorry folks, there are no "unlawful combattants". No matter how
justified the military intervention in Afghanistan was, Afghans had full
rights to defend their country against an invading military force.



The big problem with Afghanistan is that you didn't have any real
central government but numerous tribal warlords each with their own
forces and in a constant state of flux in regards to their allegiances
to each other.
Hell, from the British point of view the American revolutionary forces
were all unlawful combatants, as were all the Confederate forces during
the Civil War as seen from the Northern point of view.


The Bush regime just invented thsi phrase and trying to justify their
war crimes. Oh, and by the way, the USA constitution also grants legal
rights/due legal process to PEOPLE, not citizens. The people at
gantanamo, while being treated like animals, should have been given due
legal process by the USA, charged with a crime, provided with a proper
court (not some judicial military kangoroo court) and tried within
reasonable time.



That's what really gets me- they aren't considered to be POW's so they
don't get their Geneva Convention rights, but they also aren't
considered to be civilian criminals, so they don't get the rights that a
criminal defendants has either.

Pat
  #25  
Old June 18th 05, 11:08 PM
JazzMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Lowther wrote:

JazzMan wrote:


But making the world a more dangerous place, especially
for US interests, isn't a crime? Perhaps it should be...


Then the Left would have rather a lot to answer for, wouldn't they.


Funny, last I looked the so-called "left" hasn't been in
power for half a decade, and isn't even remotely in any
kind of power now. Yet the world is becoming a more dangerous
and unstable place every day, today, tomorrow. So, if the
left hasn't been in a position to actually affect policy
one way or the other, why point to them in blame for what's
going on right now?

That's just plain hee-lar-ious!

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********
  #26  
Old June 18th 05, 11:35 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



rk wrote:


Unlawful combatant. An individual who is unauthorized by
governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities but
does engage in hostilities.




Now you run into an interesting situation regarding Afghanistan- it had
no real centralized government when we invaded it, but rather private
militias under the control of warlords controlling different cities and
areas.
So if a warlord commands his private militia to attack someone, does he
constitute a "governmental authority"?
Looked at in one way, he could be considered to have no more
"governmental authority" than the captain of a pirate ship.
Looked at from a different point of view, and his tribe could be
considered to be a governmental entity unto itself, in much the way that
an individual Indian tribe could engage in hostile actions against the
U.S. without being considered a rogue force that has broken free from
some confederation of Indian tribes.
Consider this: if the Governor of a state calls out that state's
National Guard forces to but down a riot, and in the process of putting
it down the National Guard forces kill some people...are they unlawful
combatants? They did bear arms as part of the military forces of the
United States, but didn't do so under the authority of the Commander and
Chief of the United States Military.
Now obviously, that's an absurd case, as they did do it under
"governmental authority"- in this case the authority being the Governor
of the state in question.
But if a Afghani warlord is viewed as being something equivalent to a
governor of a state, or in this case leader of a tribe, does he have
that same sort of authority to order his forces to use arms without
those forces being guilty of being unlawful combatants?
I think it might come down to considering if the forces did what they
did willingly, or even acting entirely on their own, or did they engage
in hostilities under orders and threat of punishment if they did not
follow those orders?
If a Afghani warlord tells someone: "See those U.S. Forces over there?
If you don't attack them right now you and your family are dead meat."
I'd have a very hard time finding any fault on the part of the person
who followed those orders, because he certainly owed no allegiance to
the the U.S. forces whose actions could well endanger himself his
family, plus by not doing what he is told he could also have the same
dire outcome for himself for his family. His actions are occurring under
duress, and he should not be held legally responsible for them.

Pat
  #27  
Old June 19th 05, 12:05 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:51:09 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Scott Lowther wrote:


Indeed. If Bush gives in to the bleating retards who want the US to
abandon the war, then not only will he doom his presidency, but also
the future of America.

"Giving aid and comfort to the enemy" used to be a crime.




It is...in wartime...we haven't legally declared war on anyone yet; if
we had, then all those poor shmucks down at Guantanamo Bay would be POWs
and subject to their rights under the Geneva Conventions.


No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being
treated according to Geneva despite that.
  #29  
Old June 19th 05, 12:29 AM
Alan Anderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Doe wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:
No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being
treated according to Geneva despite that.


This from a citizen of the USA whose constitution grants the right to
all citizens to bear arms to defend their country.


That statement shows a real lack of understanding of what the US
Constitution is about, John. It "grants" nothing to the people. Indeed,
the amendment you're alluding to is *restricting* the powers of the
*government* to abridge the rights already owned by the people.

Sorry folks, there are no "unlawful combattants"...


So do you want the Geneva Convention to apply or not?
  #30  
Old June 19th 05, 01:24 AM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Doe wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being
treated according to Geneva despite that.


This from a citizen of the USA whose constitution grants the right to
all citizens to bear arms to defend their country.

Sorry folks, there are no "unlawful combattants".


Unfortunately, this is a naive and ignorant viewpoint.

Spies and Saboteurs have always been excluded from
the prisoner of war treaties.

No matter how
justified the military intervention in Afghanistan was, Afghans had full
rights to defend their country against an invading military force.


Of course. And a number of reasonable people have held that the
Taliban should be treated as prisoners of war. And in general they
have been. It's a defensible argument that the Afghan civil war
isn't over and that the Taliban prisoners should still be held for
a while longer, but they should be treated as POWs.

Al Qaeda are not lawful combatants: they are not a national or
territorial organization, they don't bear arms or uniforms as
required under the Geneva convention, their method of waging warfare
is to sabotage rather than fight openly. True members of Al Qaeda
are clearly not lawful combatants. They are saboteurs.

There are some people whose allegiance, some mixture of Taliban and
Al Qaeda, is somewhat debatable. Some of those have been held in
Guantanamo.

I don't entirely agree with the classifications in use and the
lack of clarity of the grey Taliban lawful / Al Qaeda unlawful
dividing line. But there clearly is a line, and there clearly
are a number of people who are on the unlawful side of it,
under any of the treaty regimes or any state's interpretation
of international law.

Fundamentally, this is the international lawyers and diplomats
fault for not looking ahead enough.

The whole international law regime wasn't meant to deal with
transnational or independent terrorist organizations.
It was clear decades ago that there were such organizations
that existed and that applying the existing international
law to them was problematic. All the diplomats basically
turned their back on the problem.

How the current regime of international law is being bent
to deal with it, rather than have some new international
law regime put in place, is an ugly sight.

And the Bush administration certainly hasn't been nearly as
open about defining what they're doing as they should, nor
have they done a near enough good job on separating Taliban
from Al Qaeda.

But they're operating in a functional area of legal ambiguity
that exists because the diplomats in the 70s and 80s chose
to leave it ambiguous.

None of the diplomats *now* want to touch it, because in general
nobody has put forwards credible alternative ideas on how to deal
with the problems. The lack of progressive intellectual analysis
and debate on practical better regimes has been a loudly heard
vaccum in the debates.

So do you have any actual ideas for how to improve the international
law to deal with these issues? Or are you just blowing anti-American
smoke around out of frustration?


-george william herbert


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NOMINATION: digest, volume 2453397 Ross Astronomy Misc 233 October 23rd 05 04:24 AM
VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, March 2005 [email protected] Astronomy Misc 108 May 16th 05 02:55 AM
President Reagan honored from space Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 June 11th 04 03:48 PM
Moon key to space future? James White Policy 90 January 6th 04 05:29 PM
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light ralph sansbury Astronomy Misc 8 August 31st 03 02:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.