Us breaking geneva convntion

[ToBeMe]

Hmmm, don't doubt there have been some breaches of it........but.......can anyone honestly name any recent conflict where the Geneva Convention hasn't been broken in someones opinion or in some way?????

Not saying it's right for anyone to break it, but, it seems that in every conflict of any sort within the last say, 50 years or so, someone has broken it either blatently, or at least in someone elses opinions.......

Blame is going to be hard to assign IMHO because there were also Brittish Sp.Op. forces whom witnessed what is mentioned in the article and possible others............

 

[Czar]

<< Hmmm, don't doubt there have been some breaches of it........but.......can anyone honestly name any recent conflict where the Geneva Convention hasn't been broken in someones opinion or in some way?????

Not saying it's right for anyone to break it, but, it seems that in every conflict of any sort within the last say, 50 years or so, someone has broken it either blatently, or at least in someone elses opinions.......

Blame is going to be hard to assign IMHO because there were also Brittish Sp.Op. forces whom witnessed what is mentioned in the article and possible others............ >>


True, there is much need to start punishing countries and people who dont go by the rules which are set.

 

[Balt]

<<Watching the NA massacre Taliban prisoners and not trying stopping it is braking the Geneva Convention.>>

Those reports were confirmed to be exaggerated (by the Red Cross I believe), and they embraced those who defected. Also worth noting that the foreign members of the Taliban killed more Taliban (because they wanted to defect) in cold blood than the Northern Alliance did.


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

No, it doesn't.

 

[Michael]

The Geneva Convention does not require the taking of prisoners in all circumstances. Taking of prisoners is foolish when the prisoners would seriously put your unit at risk. The US did not and probably does not have enough troops on the ground to take prisoners. The US is not interested in allowing Arab soldiers to surrender to the few troops they have as they couldn't protect them from the NA if they wanted to.

The US has asked and tried to stop some of the actions taken against the Taliban prisoners. Once the armed revolt started, btw, they were no longer prisoners.

The US has never said that they will not accept surrender. They have said they will only accept uncondtional surrenders. That is perfectly within the Geneva Convention.

This is just a red herring to allow a select few to spew out more ill-thought out and factless anti-Americanism. It always is the same few.

Michael

 

[Jejunum]

<< 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. >>



YES! this is the funamental issue. I am glad non of u blood thirsty anandtechers have any real power because you guys have such terrible eye for an eye attitudes... We are better than terroirsts we do not have to resort to their level... /flame suit ON

 

[boolerboy]

how does the geneva convention apply to criminal arrests and detentions made in the USA, of civilians, by non-military law enforcement? the FBI is not military. the 548 people have been detained in response to the thousands of murders comitted on september 11. how is a murder investigation covered by the geneva convention? only the US constitution and US laws can dictate how the US government conducts a murder investigation.

 

[AndrewR]

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.

I could point out quite a few members of the Intelligence community who are whackos so that proves very little. If he only lasted five years, perhaps he wasn't that good at his job.

Nevertheless, a little examination of the article is enough to debunk this tripe. To wit:

"The Fourth Convention, issued in 1949 and titled "Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War," safeguards "as a minimum" the rights of all "persons taking no active part in the hostilities..."

So, if the people in question were actively involved in hostilities, and I do believe that aiding terrorist activity falls under that category, then this Convention bears absolutely no relevance. Certainly, it's on a case by case basis in that regard, but a blanket assumption that it applies is false.

"Clearly this stricture of international law is intended..."

This whole article is full of phrases like that. This guy just assumes that he's right without providing any rational basis for his position other than by stating that it's "clear". Now I am not surprised that his career in Intelligence was so short.

"Surely the rights to an open trial..." There he goes again. SURELY... Well, of course it is as you say it is.

"The Fourth Convention also requires countries to apply to war detainees the law as it existed at the time of their offenses. Since U.S. courts have generally extended to defendants the protections mentioned in the previous paragraph, it's therefore at least a violation of the spirit of the convention to drop them now."

The law has not changed. The law in this country gives latitude to the Executive branch to respond to times of crisis, and these military tribunals are just that. Further, the various portions that have been laid out will not apply to all currently detained persons, as stated by Ashcroft himself. Also note the phrase "generally extended", which is far from an absolute condition.

"certainly seems" To whom? A muckraker like the author?

"Therefore it should likewise provide it to Taliban officials now."

Which Taliban officials? The dead ones or the ones who are in hiding? Is this guy honestly asserting that the Taliban are going to care about Al Qaida operatives? What about non-Afghani detainees who bear no connection whatsoever to the Taliban but do have a strong connection with bin Laden? Interesting.

 

[Harvey]

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

Just what we need -- Another bumble brained halfwit whose only weapon in a discussion is generalized name calling. If you think of yourself as a "conservative" (another generalized lable I find apalling) I have to wonder what it is you think you're trying to concerve. It's obviously not any amount of intelligence applied to solving the real problems of society.

Excuse the rant. Second thought, I don't care if you excuse it. I AM a liberal, but that doesn't mean I embrace the same side of every stinking issue you self styled "conservatives" assign to everyone who calls themself liberal.

Either put some meat behind your flames, or STFU! :|

Back to the topic of this thread -- You may or may not agree with halik, but we do live under a rule of law. I think Ashcroft is on a dangerous path. He has demonstrated that he is willing to follow the Constitution only as long as it doesn't interfere with his personal political and moral agenda. If it does, he's willing to trash the Constitution. Regardless of your political inclinations, you're a moron if you want to follow his lead without doing some sincere critical evaluation of his actions and his intentions. Real conservatism means conserving and preserving the meaning and intent of the Constitution, not subverting it for one political purpose or another.

 

[Oyeve]

Ok Harvey, what would you do? tell us all what would YOU do under the current circumstance. I would LOVE to hear your resolution. Well? Tell us? Protest? oooh, thatll go far. Voice your opinion? Like anyone cares. As an American you do whatever it takes to safegurd you country, family and way of life. I live only several blocks away from the WTC Not in LA LA land like you. I saw this first hand. What we as a country are doing is the right thing you pansy assed lib! So you STFU!

 

[BoberFett]

<< 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. >>

No, I just don't expect to take it up the ass from some anti-US prick who has a little money and thinks he can do whatever he wants.

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

We've stooped? We gave them plenty of time to surrender. We were more than nice about it considering what they did to us. They kept playing games and taunting us. Now they're getting killed just as they deserve and people whine about it.

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

No it doesn't. Terrorists bad. People who kill terrorists good.

 

[aznspeed]

<< No, I just don't expect to take it up the ass from some beloved patriot who gets a little money and thinks he can do whatever he wants. >>



-pics?

 

[BoberFett]

<< He has demonstrated that he is willing to follow the Constitution only as long as it doesn't interfere with his personal political and moral agenda. >>

You just described human nature. Whatcha gonna do?

 

[Harvey]

Oyeve -- << Protest? oooh, thatll go far. Voice your opinion? Like anyone cares. As an American you do whatever it takes to safegurd you country, family and way of life. I live only several blocks away from the WTC Not in LA LA land like you. I saw this first hand. What we as a country are doing is the right thing you pansy assed lib! >>

My aren't we just a little presumputous? :Q You don't know squat about what I have done, or what I would do, but all you can do is come back with more name calling.

As an American, I speak and act to preserve what I understand to be American Constitutional values. That includes freedom of speech, and association and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It would be pointless to reply any further to you. You're obviously way to shy of grey matter to comprehend anything more complex than a Twinkie. :|

BoberFett -- << You just described human nature. Whatcha gonna do? >>

I'll exercise my American right to voice my opposition to his actions where I think he's wrong. As Attorney General, he took an oath to uphold the laws of the nation, regardless of his personal views on a given issue. In fact, Ashcroft was specifically asked about that during his confirmation hearings, and he swore he would do so. He has a sworn duty to overcome his "human nature" and act according to the law.

 

[BlueApple]

<< 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... >>



Well said! The US is just as 'bad' as everyone else out there. We supported some of the worst regimes in the world just because it was good for us at the time... just look at Bin Laden... we gave them hundreds of millions!! Look what we did in Vietnam, look what we did to Native Americans.

 

[Michael]

Harvey - Can you be specific about where Ashcroft has not followed the Constitution? I have seen zero instances where he has violated the Constitution and every in every action that I have read about, the Justice department has been acting as the law allows and only as the law allows.

Of course, your whole point was preceded by the statement that it was just your opinion which means I probably could just ignore it, but I am interested if you have any facts to back up your attempted slur.

Michael

 

[BoberFett]

<< I'll exercise my American right to voice my opposition to his actions where I think he's wrong. As Attorney General, he took an oath to uphold the laws of the nation, regardless of his personal views on a given issue. In fact, Ashcroft was specifically asked about that during his confirmation hearings, and he swore he would do so. He has a sworn duty to overcome his "human nature" and act according to the law. >>

Even better, let's get rid of this whole Republican administration and get some good old fashined Democrats in there. Then they can pick and choose which parts of the law to ignore, but at least it'll more to your way of thinking.

 

[halik]

well in his last speech to congress he said that everyone that doesnt support his proposals is aiding to the terrorists

 

[Harvey]

Michael -- << Harvey - Can you be specific about where Ashcroft has not followed the Constitution? >>

1. He tried to reverser Oregon's "Death with Dignity" assisted sucide statute. Whether he agrees with it, or not, medical licenses are the domain of the states, so he was arguably acting against the rights of the citizens of Oregon's to determine issues as defined in the Constitution. Don't argue the merits of this with me. A Federal judge has already put stayed implementation of the Ashcroft's orders until the matter is decided.

2. Unless you're living in a Cave (say hello to Osama), you have to know that many in Congress and many other very skilled and learned people have questioned the Contitutionality of a number of the tactics announced by the Bush adminstration, most specifically the military tribunals. Again, we don't have to argue the issue, here. The fact is, his actions are, and rightfully should be, subject to public scrutiny. If we just accept his, or any adminstration's edicts without question, we will deserve the totalitarian state we get.

Want to conserve something? Try your own Constitutional rights.

So much for my so called "slur."

 

[Lankin]

We arent at war. If we were, then we've been at war with Iraq for 10 years..

 

[Lankin]

Well lefties such as Lieberman support the military tribunals. I think some democrats *cough*Kennedy*cough* are just opposed to anything a republican does, for no reason other than they are republicans...

 

[Tominator]

<< 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. >>



Germany and Japan did not abide by the Convention guidelines. In fact, show me a recent conflict where both combatants followed it.

There are no rules in war!

 

[Czar]

<<

<< 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. >>



Germany and Japan did not abide by the Convention guidelines. In fact, show me a recent conflict where both combatants followed it.

There are no rules in war! >>



uuuuu you know when the geneva convention was signed? guess you dont have a clue

http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html
Signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949.
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 21 October 1950.

 

[Michael]

Harvey - Case 1 - doesn't sound unconstitutional to me. He is part of the executive branch of the legal system (Justice department). He made an executive decision based on the Justice department's interpretation of the law. As is allowed by the US system, this interpretation was questioned and a judge (part of the Judiciary branch) was consulted. The judge thought it was enough of a question that he said, wait, let's have a hearing and allow it to be argued in front of a judge so a decision can be made. Eventually, it could go to the Supreme Court who will rule on 1) is there the legal authority to act, and 2) is the law granting the legal authority valid (constitutional or not). Seems like the Constitution and the role of the Executive and Judiciary branches are being followed just fine.

case 2 - From everything I've read, the members of Congress who were questioning the legality had their question time and were routed. Almost all of the legal opinions I've read have all said that the law is being followed. Some members of Congress are uncomfortable with the breadth of the law and wish to change it, but that's different than acting in an unconstitutional manner.

And yes, saying that Ashcroft will pick and chose what part of the Constitution he will follow is a slur and the slur is very poorly supported by your two examples.

As per your request, I didn't discuss my opinion on the merits of the actions. You seem to have made up your mind already so I thank you for warning me so I don't waste my time pounding on your pig-head .

 

[Tominator]

<< uuuuu you know when the geneva convention was signed? guess you dont have a clue >>



There were guidelines and a 'Convention' held after WW1...it was a joke then and the Genava Convention no better. It was origionally convened because of the gas used in the war that claimed hundreds of casualities long after the fighting ceased. Many countries signed the agreement and it wasn't too many years before some broke the agreement. It also limited the production of war material. All it really did was prevent the US, and it's allies to be, from proper preparation for the next war. Germany and Japan both ignored the agreement when it was to their advantage.





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



Are you describing yourself...again?

 

[Czar]

<<

<< uuuuu you know when the geneva convention was signed? guess you dont have a clue >>



There were guidelines and a 'Convention' held after WW1...it was a joke then and the Genava Convention no better. It was origionally convened because of the gas used in the war that claimed hundreds of casualities long after the fighting ceased. Many countries signed the agreement and it wasn't too many years before some broke the agreement. It also limited the production of war material. All it really did was prevent the US, and it's allies to be, from proper preparation for the next war. Germany and Japan both ignored the agreement when it was to their advantage.





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



Are you describing yourself...again? >>



Since you are going to direct personal attacks I think it is time to leave.