Us breaking geneva convntion

[halik]

see it here

Dont you find the media quote "war on terrorism" little disturbing? i mean whats to stop us form making war on sunlight or any other broad term? Geneva conventions state that was can be only declared on a sovereign country.

 

[Balt]

boo-fvcking-hoo.

 

[JoeBaD]

no one's keeping ya here. why don't ya move.

 

[Oyeve]

Just what we need, another bleeding heart liberal.

 

[astriy]

yeah, whatever. btw, I just declared war on you. Screw the geneva convention.

 

[JellyBaby]

Call it "war", "response", whatever. Terrorists and their buds are going down one at a time.

They don't play by the rules but we're generally obligated to do so. That's part of being civilized and I have no problem with allowing them to be tried...even Taliban "officials", who are not part of a legitimate government.

 

[LethalWolfe]

We've also declared a war on drugs, a war on crime, and so on and so forth. It's a figure of speech.


Lethal

 

[eakers]

i heard this morning on the bbc that un officials are recommending that anyone who has broken the geneva convention should not be allowed to control afgahnistan.

just thought id throw it in there.

*kat. <-- not putting her liberal opinon in here cuz she will be ripped to shreads by ppl who dont see things the same way she does.

 

[HellsFury]

Slate is written by the biggest liberals in the United States. They are all a bunch of wack jobs who blame Geoge Bush for everything under the sun. They couldn't get it up last night, must be a republicans fault.

BTW, I am a registered independent and vote for who I like or dislike the least.

 

[Czar]

There has been debates about this in some medias in Europe for a while, thats the first one in the US I see talk about it. Good that they do.

The Geneva Convention is there for a reason, and it is a rule everyone should follow because no one wants to go to a war where the other side doesnt follow it.





<< i heard this morning on the bbc that un officials are recommending that anyone who has broken the geneva convention should not be allowed to control afgahnistan.

just thought id throw it in there.

*kat. <-- not putting her liberal opinon in here cuz she will be ripped to shreads by ppl who dont see things the same way she does. >>


Well said I´m leaving this thread to because some people dont like to face the facts and be critized.

 

[halik]

Thats what i thought, i mean we dont wanna go fight someone thats gonna keep kicking us in the balls. People should see that this terrorist witch hunt can get out of hand. It would be a good thing to get rid ofthe terrorists, but theres big margin of error and this could very well turn to a new case of mccarthyism. (you know to get rid of someone we dont like just call him a commie/terrorist)


no one's keeping ya here. why don't ya move.
i love the my-way-or-the-highway mentality. why dont we shoot everyone that isnt like us

 

[beatniks3]

<< We've also declared a war on drugs, a war on crime, and so on and so forth. It's a figure of speech.


Lethal >>



didn't you see that article about how the drug czar suggested that we rename the drug war to something more similiar to fighting cancer? he suggested that term war was too harsh (really saying that by calling it a war he is in the position of losing it). JoeBaD, why are you wasting server space by posting junk like that? what is your point?

 

[Lucky]

<< Just what we need, another bleeding heart liberal. >>



Scott Shuger is a Slate senior writer who spent five years in the U.S. Navy and served overseas as an intelligence officer.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

to those who dont think we should be at "war"...i ask the same ? i've been asking everyone who says this...

what is your solution to stop Bin Laden from attacking us again, now that he has seen how successful he can be?

so far i have not heard an answer...everyone says, "I'm not sure, but this is not the way"...or "I dont have one, but this might cause future attacks and future terrorists"

neither of these are good answers...sure this might cause future attacks...but what we are dealing with is getting rid of the attacks that will come if we dont do anything. if we sit back and pretend nothing is happened...yeah that will stop bin laden...

if u think that u are living in a dream world...

i want to hear how to stop terrorists without fighting them

 

[Oyeve]

<< Scott Shuger is a Slate senior writer who spent five years in the U.S. Navy and served overseas as an intelligence officer. >>




And your point is?????

 

[Jfur]

<< Slate is written by the biggest liberals in the United States. They are all a bunch of wack jobs who blame Geoge Bush for everything under the sun. They couldn't get it up last night, must be a republicans fault. >>



well, with Dole gobbling up all the viagra...

 

[gopunk]

no, i don't think so.

"war on terrorism" is more or less a catch phrase. to my knowledge, congress has not passed an act of war. this has to be done for it to technically be a war. we've only three official wars in our history. revolutionary, ww1, and ww2.

thus, since it's not technically a war, it doesn't fall under the geneva convention.

 

[gopunk]

well, with Dole gobbling up all the viagra...

*boiiing!*

 

[Lucky]

<<

<< Scott Shuger is a Slate senior writer who spent five years in the U.S. Navy and served overseas as an intelligence officer. >>




And your point is????? >>




They werent my words, it was from the article. I thought that since he served in the military and had intelligence experience, he wasnt just one to write off as a whacko.

Halik missed the main point of the article. They are not breaking the geneva convention just because we delcared war on terrororism, he describes in detail several other reasons. If fact, halik's reason posted in the OP is probably the most trivial of all of them.

 

[halik]

well the fact that we're not really in war leads to the military tribunals. You cant try someone for war crimes when theres no war

 

[BlueApple]

We aren?t at ?war? officially. The last time the US declared war was on Japan in the early 1940?s. This also means that the president should stop saying we are at war, we are not at war.

link
another link

 

[OrByte]

did congress even pass a declaration?


where the hell was I?

 

[Czar]

Ok, just one quick post

In what way the US is braking the Geneva Convention. The US is braking the Prisoners of War part. Saying that "we will take no prisoners" is braking the Geneva Convention. Watching the NA massacre Taliban prisoners and not trying stopping it is braking the Geneva Convention. The Civilian part I´m not familiar about, but the other points are valid and are known.

The US has to apply by the Geneva Convention because the US signed the deal along with over 100 countries. The Taliban and the NA have not signed it and therefore do not have to follow it.

It does not matter if the US has declared war or not, anyone involved could be trialed at an internatinal millitery court charged for war crimes. Look at Yugoslavia, they never declared war, it was a civil war but many of them were trialed for war crimes.

The west must follow the rules it sets itself, it is those rules, moral rules that make the west so great.

 

[Lucky]

The Taliban and the NA have not signed it and therefore do not have to follow it.



FWIW, afghanistan as a country has signed the Geneva convention.

 

[drewshin]

it's funny how people say the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, but don't expect us to act like it.

they feel like we can stoop the level of the terrorists regarding human life whenever we want.

it sometimes make you wonder who the real bad guy is starting to be...