Us breaking geneva convntion

[Tominator]

<< guess you dont have a clue >>



You do not like being shown up!

Should I go back and post everytime you have personally attacked someone [ That is by your definition and not mine!].....lead the way bud!

 

[Zenmervolt]

From the article: "How the Bush administration is breaking the rules of war." HA! "Rules of war"? The only rule in war is that there are no rules. Shows a lot to me about Slate that they decided to put this up the day before Pearl Harbor Day. Rules cannot be placed on war, it is in its very essense, an act of pure brutality that is a last resort when dealing with people who will not respond to more civilised means. If we restrict the way in which a war can be fought, we serve only to put our soldiers in danger. In this type of situation, my first priority would be only to our own troops. It sounds bad, but I don't really care about the people who are firing shots at or who could potentially be firing shots at our troops. I have too many friends in various branches of the service for me to advocate anything that even mildly increases the unnecessary risks to our men and women.

ZV

 

[Balt]

BlueApple,

<<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...>>

It was a fight against Communism, which was seen as a very serious threat at the time (and for good reason, seeing as how Communist regimes have always been authoritarian.


<<just look at Bin Laden... we gave them hundreds of millions!!>>

We gave money/supplies to the Afghan freedom fighters. They were trained by bin Laden and yes they weren't all very nice people, but bin Laden made his fortune from his family, not us.

<<Look what we did in Vietnam>>

What is it we did in Vietnam that you would like to protest? Obviously it's not the death of American soldiers, since you are so concerned about everyone else.

<<look what we did to Native Americans.>>

News flash: That was a long time ago, it should never be forgotten but it has NO relevance in this discussion.


Harvey,

<<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.>>

The same thing was said when Clinton wanted a line-item veto. So save your silly 'conserve' puns for another issue, because any administration (Democrat or Republican) will occasionally try to push the limits of what is constitutional. The tribunals may be deemed constitutional, but the line-item veto was not.

Czar,

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

I hope you keep your word this time, as it's at least the second time you've said it. If you don't have any valid argument to make, that's fine, but at least admit to it. Don't pretend to be above what you say are 'personal attacks'.

 

[CocaCola5]

<< 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 >>





You probably can't, not loosly defined like this, Bin Ladin and AQ, Taliban yes, but more than that you get into greyish area. Every imaginable randomly act of violence can be seen as terrorism.

 

[Harvey]

Michael -- Excuse you and YOUR pig head, but the reason I said it was not worth discussing of the merits of the arguments was because the only point was that he has arguablly overstepped his authority. Digressing to that discussion would be OT for this thread, and there are lots of others on the forum that are on those points. To review:

1. The Oregon case will be determined by a Federal court. I attended law school for awhile, and one of my sisters is a Constitutional attorney and law school professor. She is a first ammendment specialist. I've discussed Constitutional issues with her any number of times, and I can't say what the outcome will be. Unless you're also a Constitutional scholar, somehow I doubt you have enough background to make any final determination about this.

2. I'm listening to the news, right now. Nothing is settled with others regarding the administration's proposed military tribunals. Again, more learned minds than you or I will make that determination.

My only point is that we should not blindly accept their positions as correct, even in the face of the threat of further attacks. We can't claim be defending ourselves and our Constitution by Constitutional means. If we think we can, we have already lost the war to "conserve" our values.

 

[Michael]

Harvey - And it just as easily can be argued that there was no overstepping of authority. I have seen quite a few accounts of both sides of the argument on the Oregon law and the military tribunals. The majority of the opinions I've seen on the tribunal law is that it is legal and the concern tends to be the slippery slope type where some don't trust the people in power. The current line of thinking is that the law needs to be changed or made more specific.

The opinions you cited to support your point of view (your sister, for example) are about as relevent as my peer group, which also includes lawyers and their opinion is that the tribunals are legal. Neither party's opinions matter, only the Supreme Court or Congress (if the law is to be changed) matter.

So I don't think you have any firmer basis for your slur on Ashcroft other than your opinion. You're attempting to dress it up with sideshow support, but it is all smoke and mirrors.

Michael

ps - I deal with legal and compliance issues every day for a living and I deal with lawyers and the law all the time.

 

[Brutuskend]

A bit of history.

Geneva Convention

another good link

 

[gopunk]

okay people, does the fact that WE'RE NOT AT WAR, have any significance?

 

[AndrewR]

okay people, does the fact that WE'RE NOT AT WAR, have any significance?

We'll lively NEVER be at war again if the definition comes down to the actual declaration of war by Congress. We're in a different world right now.

The biggest mistake the United States makes when conducting armed hostilities is adhering to any sort of "rules of war" or rules of engagement. Garbage like that kills people in uniform -- wait for Blackhawk Down to come out in theaters if you want a concrete example of that. We're still doing it today. CENTCOM has been retaining final approval authority for certain targets which has led to more than a few missed opportunities, apparently. Centralized command decisions in a fluid combat environment NEVER WORK. :|

 

[LoveDoc]

All I have to say is that you guys are arguing over whether or not the United States is breaking the geneva convention when you are not realizing that the Bin Laden and his boys attacked us, on our soil. What we are doing now is called self-defense, we are protecting ourself from future attack. If someone is threatining your life and injuring you, aren't you going to do everything you can to stop them? I know i would, if some guy hits me in the balls, you better believe i'm gonna be swinging after that.

Also, you are guys are talking about being fair in war, about having rules to follow by. Am I the only one that realizes how oxymoronic this is? Its war for crying out loud, the whole point is to win, to come out on top. We aren't in a boxing ring where you cant hit below the belt or things like that. When your people are being killed and you have ways to stop the enemy, you are going to utilize those methods.

 

[Tominator]

<< Also, you are guys are talking about being fair in war, about having rules to follow by. Am I the only one that realizes how oxymoronic this is? Its war for crying out loud, the whole point is to win, to come out on top. We aren't in a boxing ring where you cant hit below the belt or things like that. When your people are being killed and you have ways to stop the enemy, you are going to utilize those methods. >>



Vietnam comes to mind....the enemy had the will and we didn't. Never again!

 

[Red Dawn]

<< 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... >>

In war there is no bad guy there are just the Victors and the Vanquished. I'd rather be a Victor and a bad guy that the Vanquished good guys. The good thing about fighting the Sub Human Al Qieda and those cowardly Taliban is that we would really have to stoop before we could even come close to being the scum they are and the scum they represent.

 

[Dually]

Its not a violation of the Geneva Convention. Afghanistan isn't a signatory, its previous, previous, previous previous previous government it. Also all people being held are being given fair treatment. Also if they aren't citizens they don't have constitutional rights.