|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In message , OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org writes On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:09:11 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Going to war under knowingly false pretenses, Why does this bizarre delusion persist, in the wake of all of the investigations that show otherwise? ...The delusion comes from one point of order and one point alone: the WMDs were *not* found. Everything else that was a justification for the war - Saddam is a murdering sick ******* who's Satan's abusive boyfriend, the Kurds were being exterminated, women were being oppressed, Iraqi money was funding the Taliban and Al & Fred Queda's terrorist activities, etc, etc - was true. On that basis shouldn't you be invading Saudi Arabia? It's Saudi money that's funding Al Queda and the Taliban, and women are more oppressed there than they are in Iraq. And try expressing Christian views. You own soldiers had to get out quick before that became an issue. BTW, why were all those Saudi high-ups allowed to leave the US after September 11? And shouldn't you be invading Zimbabwe? "Murdering sick *******" certainly fits, and his actions are destabilising Africa. Sorry, I forgot. No oil. And who needs stability? After all, the terrorists now active in Iraq have access to nuclear materials. -- Boycott whale killers - Japan, Iceland, Norway Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 04:29 PM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |