(T)eflon(S)hadow
R.I.P. Neda
+456|7083|Grapevine, TX
Shipbuilder, you're just a dumbass at this point. I clearly explained my position and being the good lib you are you avoid my point, and change the subject. Deflecting any responsibility you have for making this post, and not being able to articulate anything to discredit my findings. Your phucked up, you can't call the President a War Criminal, he hasn't done anything illegal, and there is no "pardoning" in this bill!!!!! So Again, you have not proven anything based on your logic, or John Cafferty's, either.

Don't simply dodge the issues at hand by bringing up a different topic, we could discuss in a different forum.

Since you like the topic of law so much, do you believe that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Being judged by their peers?Not CNN!

And as for my drinking, it was an expression! It's water, you dumbphuk! I'm AT WORK!

Last edited by (T)eflon(S)hadow (2006-09-29 18:36:00)

kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6803|Southeastern USA
the prior bush and top brass stance was (and correctly) that enemy combatants waive GC rights by fighting non-uniformed and such, so they don't have to be treated as such, the supreme court just pulled something out of their ass again and decided to rewrite the GC for themselves, saying everyone everywhere no matter how many times they violate GC statutes or whether or not they signed the GC are privy to it's protections, basically another spineless move so they wouldn't have to actually take a stand on something for once
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Yes it does.

It's simple.

1) The Geneva Conventions were ratified long ago by Congress.
2) Therefore, the Geneva Conventions are Congressional law.
3) After 9/11, the president and his administration condoned and conducted activities in violation of these Congressional laws.
4) The current bill RETROACTIVELY excuses the abuse of these violations.
5) Presto - presidential pardon.
I'd agree if you could provide some proof there ship.  Those detained or tortured were not protected by Geneva.......you lose.
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6839|Montreal

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Yes it does.

It's simple.

1) The Geneva Conventions were ratified long ago by Congress.
2) Therefore, the Geneva Conventions are Congressional law.
3) After 9/11, the president and his administration condoned and conducted activities in violation of these Congressional laws.
4) The current bill RETROACTIVELY excuses the abuse of these violations.
5) Presto - presidential pardon.
I'd agree if you could provide some proof there ship.  Those detained or tortured were not protected by Geneva.......you lose.
Did you even read the beginning Wesker? This whole argument came about because the Supreme Court ruled that those detained or tortured were protected by the Geneva conventions. Lol YOU lose.
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

JimmyBotswana wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Yes it does.

It's simple.

1) The Geneva Conventions were ratified long ago by Congress.
2) Therefore, the Geneva Conventions are Congressional law.
3) After 9/11, the president and his administration condoned and conducted activities in violation of these Congressional laws.
4) The current bill RETROACTIVELY excuses the abuse of these violations.
5) Presto - presidential pardon.
I'd agree if you could provide some proof there ship.  Those detained or tortured were not protected by Geneva.......you lose.
Did you even read the beginning Wesker? This whole argument came about because the Supreme Court ruled that those detained or tortured were protected by the Geneva conventions. Lol YOU lose.
And that was recently overturned........

It is not up to the Supreme court to decide that, that is my contention at least, but see here is where you guys are wrong, if the Supreme court recently overturned this, and they are now protected, thats called ex post facto.

Its like saying Weed is legal, Bob smokes weed on Monday, Tuesday weed is illegal, Bob is arrested Wednesday for smoking on Monday.......once again, I reiterate, you lose.
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6783|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:


I'd agree if you could provide some proof there ship.  Those detained or tortured were not protected by Geneva.......you lose.
Did you even read the beginning Wesker? This whole argument came about because the Supreme Court ruled that those detained or tortured were protected by the Geneva conventions. Lol YOU lose.
And that was recently overturned........

It is not up to the Supreme court to decide that, that is my contention at least, but see here is where you guys are wrong, if the Supreme court recently overturned this, and they are now protected, thats called ex post facto.

Its like saying Weed is legal, Bob smokes weed on Monday, Tuesday weed is illegal, Bob is arrested Wednesday for smoking on Monday.......once again, I reiterate, you lose.
I think that anyone who EVER argues in favour of imprisonment without trial AND torture should be the ones that lose.

It doesn't matter what your supreme court says or what the Geneva Convention says, its basic human rights you fools and they should NOT be ignored.
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

TeamZephyr wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:


Did you even read the beginning Wesker? This whole argument came about because the Supreme Court ruled that those detained or tortured were protected by the Geneva conventions. Lol YOU lose.
And that was recently overturned........

It is not up to the Supreme court to decide that, that is my contention at least, but see here is where you guys are wrong, if the Supreme court recently overturned this, and they are now protected, thats called ex post facto.

Its like saying Weed is legal, Bob smokes weed on Monday, Tuesday weed is illegal, Bob is arrested Wednesday for smoking on Monday.......once again, I reiterate, you lose.
I think that anyone who EVER argues in favour of imprisonment without trial AND torture should be the ones that lose.

It doesn't matter what your supreme court says or what the Geneva Convention says, its basic human rights you fools and they should NOT be ignored.
I'm not saying they should be tortured, I think thats wrong, but they are not being IMPRISONED they are being DETAINED as POW's for the DURATION OF THE WAR, since they have committed no crimes, they do not need a trial, please read the Geneva Convention, please.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6970
Terrorists are not soldiers, not in an army, therefore they are not protected by the geneva convention.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6803|Southeastern USA

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Terrorists are not soldiers, not in an army, therefore they are not protected by the geneva convention.
I motion cyb for the next supreme court justice, he seems to have a better handle on it than all of em
Twist
Too old to be doing this sh*t
+103|6777|Little blue planet, milky way

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Terrorists are not soldiers, not in an army, therefore they are not protected by the geneva convention.
DUDE... that' is EXACTLY what Bush thought, and why he NEEDS this bill to save his ass, because supreme court has ruled that the terrorist ARE protected by the geneva conventions.
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6783|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Terrorists are not soldiers, not in an army, therefore they are not protected by the geneva convention.
What about those Taliban soliders you apprehended in Afghanistan that are undergoing the same treatment as the "terrorists"?
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

Twist wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Terrorists are not soldiers, not in an army, therefore they are not protected by the geneva convention.
DUDE... that' is EXACTLY what Bush thought, and why he NEEDS this bill to save his ass, because supreme court has ruled that the terrorist ARE protected by the geneva conventions.
He doesn't need anything to save his ass, EX POST FACTO, OMFG.  You people are unbelievable.  If they are protected under Geneva, guess what , we get to keep them FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR WITHOUT A TRIAL. OMFG read the GOD DAMN CONVENTION.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm

The Geneva Convention wrote:

ARTICLE 109

Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.

Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-30 07:39:23)

Twist
Too old to be doing this sh*t
+103|6777|Little blue planet, milky way

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

He doesn't need anything to save his ass, EX POST FACTO, OMFG.  You people are unbelievable.
Dude... You are either a first year law student, or have graduated from party U.

It is NOT common legal practice in ANY democratic country to CRIMINALIZE retroactively, while LEGALIZING retroactively is quite common. To take your own example:

Smoking marihuana is legal:
Bob takes a huge bong to the 4th of july celebration, tonnes of witnesses, and CNN showing his bong smoking live.
On September 1st a new law is passed that criminalizes weed since January first the year before.

My questions: Does Bob go to jail ?
                     Why/Why not ?

Example two:

Smoking marihuana is ILLEGAL:
Bob takes a huge bong to the 4th of july celebration, tonnes of witnesses, and CNN showing his bong smoking live.
On September 1st a new law is passed that legalizes weed since January first the year before.

My questions: Can bob be prosecuted ?
                     Why/Why not ?

Once you've figured out the difference, then you'll understand ex post facto !


And for the record, I seriously doubt that Bush is concerned with INTERNATIONAL law (the Geneva convention), because under the convention, he CAN hold them as you point out, but he CANNOT subject them to torture, or withhold basic human rights. However, he may be rather more concerned with NATIONAL law, which untill the decision of the supreme court had NOT ruled that the internement of the "terrorists" was or wasn't legal. Now they, have, so now Bush needs a "cover my ass" bill passed, or he needs a presidential pardon from the next president (which BTW is VERY common if you look throughout history).
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6835|SE London

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

And where exactly has the Geneva convention been violated, I'd love to hear it, because common article three and four of the geneva convention EXPLICITLY EXCLUDES UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS that do not fight under a flag or country and that they DO NOT GAIN ANY privleges set forth by the Geneva conventions.  Nice try ship.  Unless you can cite an actual case of the convention being violated, which I doubt you can, as we have been interrogating terrorists, UNLAWFUL combatants those that are EXPLICITLY EXEMPTED from the conventions by its very language.
Yet none of the prisoners in Gitmo have been classified as unlawful combatants, they have been classified as enemy combatants and the supreme court has ruled that article 3 DOES apply to them. Since article 3 does apply and detainees DO GAIN ALL privileges laid out in article 3.

Supreme Court Ruling June 2006

Before you say read the Geneva convention, I should assure you that I have read it in detail and am quite familiar with the level of protection it provides for non-combatants and former combatants in war. The classification of the prisoners is a case of national law, the supreme court are the pinnacle of US law and they have ruled that the detainees are classified so as to have rights under article 3. If the nation holding them has to classify them as enemy combatants (as they do under US law - as laid out by the supreme court), then all article 3 minimum standards do apply and have not been met by the detainers.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

And you were saying?  War crimes?? Felonies? CITE ONE PLEASE.
Waterboarding is a violation of article 3 and has taken place at Gitmo. That is a war crime (it is a breach of the Geneva convention, what actually constitutes a war crime is quite a grey area) commited by the Bush administration. Sleep deprivation is another example.
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6754|Los Angeles

Bertster7 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

And you were saying?  War crimes?? Felonies? CITE ONE PLEASE.
Waterboarding is a violation of article 3 and has taken place at Gitmo. That is a war crime (it is a breach of the Geneva convention, what actually constitutes a war crime is quite a grey area) commited by the Bush administration. Sleep deprivation is another example.
Wesker?

The silence is deafening.

+1
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6905|USA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

And you were saying?  War crimes?? Felonies? CITE ONE PLEASE.
Waterboarding is a violation of article 3 and has taken place at Gitmo. That is a war crime (it is a breach of the Geneva convention, what actually constitutes a war crime is quite a grey area) commited by the Bush administration. Sleep deprivation is another example.
Wesker?

The silence is deafening.

+1
The war on terror, as you keep reminding us, is a war of ideals. So it would seem that since the nation of IDEALS doesn't exist, the geneva convention does not apply.

It was also meant as a rule book for"civilized warfare" among nations. Terrorists don't even have the rulebook let alone follow any code of conduct. If it takes a certain amount of torture to get info from these maniacs to help stop more terrorism in the US or elsewhere I have no problem with it. The fact that you care more about saving terrorists lives or egos or pride over innocent civilian populations is nauseating to say the least.

Last edited by lowing (2006-09-30 20:31:10)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6835|SE London

lowing wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Waterboarding is a violation of article 3 and has taken place at Gitmo. That is a war crime (it is a breach of the Geneva convention, what actually constitutes a war crime is quite a grey area) commited by the Bush administration. Sleep deprivation is another example.
Wesker?

The silence is deafening.

+1
The war on terror, as you keep reminding us, is a war of ideals. So it would seem that since the nation of IDEALS doesn't exist, the geneva convention does not apply.

It was also meant as a rule book for"civilized warfare" among nations. Terrorists don't even have the rulebook let alone follow any code of conduct. If it takes a certain amount of torture to get info from these maniacs to help stop more terrorism in the US or elsewhere I have no problem with it. The fact that you care more about saving terrorists lives or egos or pride over innocent civilian populations is nauseating to say the least.
That's your opinion, strangely enough it was Bush's opinion too, you two must have a lot in common. On the legal side of things the Geneva convention DOES apply. The supreme courts interpretation of international law says so, that's what the law is in the US anyway, what the supreme court says it is - that's the whole point. There is absolutely no question that article 3 of the Geneva convention applies to detainees currently held by the US.

The point of the Geneva convention was to prevent attrcious violations of human rights. It was brought in after WWII with those rights specifically in mind, after the concentration camps and brutal POW camps. It is not just applied to soldiers, that is a very misinformed view.

I find your attitude to this nauseating. Torture is fine if it prevents terrorism in the US? Then by the same standards the terrorists are perfectly justified in torturing US hostages to prevent to US from attacking them. It is the same simplistic 'our goals are more important and we will do whatever we want to achieve them' attitude, which strikes me as quite barbaric. If the Bush administration can't rise above all this torture business and conduct themselves like civilised people, that's a big step in the wrong direction.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6905|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:


Wesker?

The silence is deafening.

+1
The war on terror, as you keep reminding us, is a war of ideals. So it would seem that since the nation of IDEALS doesn't exist, the geneva convention does not apply.

It was also meant as a rule book for"civilized warfare" among nations. Terrorists don't even have the rulebook let alone follow any code of conduct. If it takes a certain amount of torture to get info from these maniacs to help stop more terrorism in the US or elsewhere I have no problem with it. The fact that you care more about saving terrorists lives or egos or pride over innocent civilian populations is nauseating to say the least.
That's your opinion, strangely enough it was Bush's opinion too, you two must have a lot in common. On the legal side of things the Geneva convention DOES apply. The supreme courts interpretation of international law says so, that's what the law is in the US anyway, what the supreme court says it is - that's the whole point. There is absolutely no question that article 3 of the Geneva convention applies to detainees currently held by the US.

The point of the Geneva convention was to prevent attrcious violations of human rights. It was brought in after WWII with those rights specifically in mind, after the concentration camps and brutal POW camps. It is not just applied to soldiers, that is a very misinformed view.

I find your attitude to this nauseating. Torture is fine if it prevents terrorism in the US? Then by the same standards the terrorists are perfectly justified in torturing US hostages to prevent to US from attacking them. It is the same simplistic 'our goals are more important and we will do whatever we want to achieve them' attitude, which strikes me as quite barbaric. If the Bush administration can't rise above all this torture business and conduct themselves like civilized people, that's a big step in the wrong direction.
Well gee whiz if it wasn't an agreement among nations, please tell me who signed the conventions who represent individuals.

I don't really care what the Supreme Court says on this issue, I spoke my OPINION. Just like I don't care about courts banning capital punishment. I am for it.

I didn't say that I was only interested in preventing terror in the US ONLY, reread I said I am interested in preventing terror everywhere.

If you had the guy that knew where your missing kid was and all he told you was that your kid was going to die in 2 hours, and he refused to tell you where your kid was, do you really expect me to believe that you wouldn't do ANYTHING MORE than just ask him politely for the information needed to save your kid? Only 2 possible answers here.

If you say No that is all I would do........we will then have established that you are a liar or a shitty father.

If you answer Yes that you would do what was needed to save your kid.........we will then have established that you are a hypocrite, and therefor not credible.


This is exactly how I view this.....Terrorists every time they strike, kill someones kid, and it could just as easily be mine.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6835|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


The war on terror, as you keep reminding us, is a war of ideals. So it would seem that since the nation of IDEALS doesn't exist, the geneva convention does not apply.

It was also meant as a rule book for"civilized warfare" among nations. Terrorists don't even have the rulebook let alone follow any code of conduct. If it takes a certain amount of torture to get info from these maniacs to help stop more terrorism in the US or elsewhere I have no problem with it. The fact that you care more about saving terrorists lives or egos or pride over innocent civilian populations is nauseating to say the least.
That's your opinion, strangely enough it was Bush's opinion too, you two must have a lot in common. On the legal side of things the Geneva convention DOES apply. The supreme courts interpretation of international law says so, that's what the law is in the US anyway, what the supreme court says it is - that's the whole point. There is absolutely no question that article 3 of the Geneva convention applies to detainees currently held by the US.

The point of the Geneva convention was to prevent attrcious violations of human rights. It was brought in after WWII with those rights specifically in mind, after the concentration camps and brutal POW camps. It is not just applied to soldiers, that is a very misinformed view.

I find your attitude to this nauseating. Torture is fine if it prevents terrorism in the US? Then by the same standards the terrorists are perfectly justified in torturing US hostages to prevent to US from attacking them. It is the same simplistic 'our goals are more important and we will do whatever we want to achieve them' attitude, which strikes me as quite barbaric. If the Bush administration can't rise above all this torture business and conduct themselves like civilized people, that's a big step in the wrong direction.
Well gee whiz if it wasn't an agreement among nations, please tell me who signed the conventions who represent individuals.

I don't really care what the Supreme Court says on this issue, I spoke my OPINION. Just like I don't care about courts banning capital punishment. I am for it.

I didn't say that I was only interested in preventing terror in the US ONLY, reread I said I am interested in preventing terror everywhere.

If you had the guy that knew where your missing kid was and all he told you was that your kid was going to die in 2 hours, and he refused to tell you where your kid was, do you really expect me to believe that you wouldn't do ANYTHING MORE than just ask him politely for the information needed to save your kid? Only 2 possible answers here.

If you say No that is all I would do........we will then have established that you are a liar or a shitty father.

If you answer Yes that you would do what was needed to save your kid.........we will then have established that you are a hypocrite, and therefor not credible.


This is exactly how I view this.....Terrorists every time they strike, kill someones kid, and it could just as easily be mine.
lol

Amusing question, totally inappropriate, seeing the massive difference between violence carried out by individuals and violence carried out by huge legitimate organisations, like the US (but also like any other nation state torturing people). There you go over simplifying the situation again.

Torturing suspects, especially as they are UNCONVICTED, is wrong - it is simply justifying the terrorists actions by stooping to their level. You think of the US as being more civilised than the terrorists. Try to keep it that way, it's a slipery slope.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6905|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's your opinion, strangely enough it was Bush's opinion too, you two must have a lot in common. On the legal side of things the Geneva convention DOES apply. The supreme courts interpretation of international law says so, that's what the law is in the US anyway, what the supreme court says it is - that's the whole point. There is absolutely no question that article 3 of the Geneva convention applies to detainees currently held by the US.

The point of the Geneva convention was to prevent attrcious violations of human rights. It was brought in after WWII with those rights specifically in mind, after the concentration camps and brutal POW camps. It is not just applied to soldiers, that is a very misinformed view.

I find your attitude to this nauseating. Torture is fine if it prevents terrorism in the US? Then by the same standards the terrorists are perfectly justified in torturing US hostages to prevent to US from attacking them. It is the same simplistic 'our goals are more important and we will do whatever we want to achieve them' attitude, which strikes me as quite barbaric. If the Bush administration can't rise above all this torture business and conduct themselves like civilized people, that's a big step in the wrong direction.
Well gee whiz if it wasn't an agreement among nations, please tell me who signed the conventions who represent individuals.

I don't really care what the Supreme Court says on this issue, I spoke my OPINION. Just like I don't care about courts banning capital punishment. I am for it.

I didn't say that I was only interested in preventing terror in the US ONLY, reread I said I am interested in preventing terror everywhere.

If you had the guy that knew where your missing kid was and all he told you was that your kid was going to die in 2 hours, and he refused to tell you where your kid was, do you really expect me to believe that you wouldn't do ANYTHING MORE than just ask him politely for the information needed to save your kid? Only 2 possible answers here.

If you say No that is all I would do........we will then have established that you are a liar or a shitty father.

If you answer Yes that you would do what was needed to save your kid.........we will then have established that you are a hypocrite, and therefor not credible.


This is exactly how I view this.....Terrorists every time they strike, kill someones kid, and it could just as easily be mine.
lol

Amusing question, totally inappropriate, seeing the massive difference between violence carried out by individuals and violence carried out by huge legitimate organisations, like the US (but also like any other nation state torturing people). There you go over simplifying the situation again.

Torturing suspects, especially as they are UNCONVICTED, is wrong - it is simply justifying the terrorists actions by stooping to their level. You think of the US as being more civilised than the terrorists. Try to keep it that way, it's a slipery slope.
Glad you think it was so amusing, now answer it!!

The only difference about this question is, the number of people threatened with the possibility of death, and the fact that it is personal to you only. I maintain that all victims of terrorism is personal to SOMEBODY. Now again, answer it.



Edited for the desertion of Bertster7.......Any of you other US hater/liberals wanna answer the question for us??

Last edited by lowing (2006-10-01 04:50:29)

GATOR591957
Member
+84|6881
What this boils down to is this.  If Bush and his administration felt they are fair and just in the dealing of interrogations, why is this clause in the bill?  Plain and simple...
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6905|USA
LOL, I didn't really expect the question to be answered.....Simply because you can not answer it without stepping on your own dicks.

Last edited by lowing (2006-10-01 09:00:23)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6905|USA
Yup, I was right, pose a question the liberals can't touch with their line of reasoning, and they head for the hills......

how about you bubbalo, and unorginalnuttah, marconious, I know you are reading my posts, whatcha think, you wanna answer this for us??
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

Twist wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

He doesn't need anything to save his ass, EX POST FACTO, OMFG.  You people are unbelievable.
Dude... You are either a first year law student, or have graduated from party U.


Once you've figured out the difference, then you'll understand ex post facto !


And for the record, I seriously doubt that Bush is concerned with INTERNATIONAL law (the Geneva convention), because under the convention, he CAN hold them as you point out, but he CANNOT subject them to torture, or withhold basic human rights. However, he may be rather more concerned with NATIONAL law, which untill the decision of the supreme court had NOT ruled that the internement of the "terrorists" was or wasn't legal. Now they, have, so now Bush needs a "cover my ass" bill passed, or he needs a presidential pardon from the next president (which BTW is VERY common if you look throughout history).
I was just pumping out a rough example, wasn't supposed to be EXAMINED under the scrutiny of say a court.....omg.

I AGREE THAT they SHOULDN'T be tortured, thats not usually a good way to do things.  The problem is right here, that I don't understand why Bush needs to cover his ass when he's been pushing to address them as POW's since the beginning.  What law/s has he broken.  Because I'm just not seeing it.  If you can cite some law either in Geneva, or under our own jurisdiction, because you seem to have A LOT more substance than some of these other morons who just talk out of there ass.  Thanks for articulating things in a clear way, but no thanks for the disrespect.  I'm currently enrolled in a very fine school, but my major isn't exactly law, however I do enjoy studying it, and am fairly competent in many of its workings.  I just didn't care enough to make a very good example.
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

And you were saying?  War crimes?? Felonies? CITE ONE PLEASE.
Waterboarding is a violation of article 3 and has taken place at Gitmo. That is a war crime (it is a breach of the Geneva convention, what actually constitutes a war crime is quite a grey area) commited by the Bush administration. Sleep deprivation is another example.
Wesker?

The silence is deafening.

+1
Oh god calm down I didn't see it, you've done the EXACT same thing to me on at least two occasions, but that aside. Let's take a look at ART 3.

The Geneva Convention wrote:

ARTICLE 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Ok I'm assuming your question is with torture/inhumane treatment.  So Ship, please extend this courtesy to me, how do you know that even happened, and how do you know that it wasn't approved, even by law,

You don't think Presidents' Administrations have tortured people in the past??

Yeah I would have to go with it NOT being a war crime as that requires a few other things, this WOULD be a violation of the convention.  Anyhow so let's say this did happen, even though you've provided no proof, WHY IS IT SO UNDERREPORTED.......because its conjecture?? Thats what I'm thinking.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-10-01 10:47:54)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard