At the time of the supreme court ruling they were in contravention of article 3 of the Geneva convention. If the highest court in the US say so then they are the ones to decide. Bush's new bill absolved everybody of blame though.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Yes but what is the crime that US soldiers are making at Gitmo?Bertster7 wrote:
No convictions that I know of. But rulings by the supreme court (in June I believe) saying what they were doing was wrong and illegal.usmarine2007 wrote:
I have not seen anyone charged and convicted with anything....I may be 100% wrong, but no convictions I have seen.
Getting away with something doesn't make it right.
it's so sad to see so many nations having to actively subvert another's economy over the span of decades in order to boost their own
wait til the mid east oil runs out, and we start tapping north america
wait til the mid east oil runs out, and we start tapping north america
Well, true about that. But then again, what have the US soldiers at gitmo done that is considered a crime in your definition?Bertster7 wrote:
At the time of the supreme court ruling they were in contravention of article 3 of the Geneva convention. If the highest court in the US say so then they are the ones to decide. Bush's new bill absolved everybody of blame though.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Yes but what is the crime that US soldiers are making at Gitmo?Bertster7 wrote:
No convictions that I know of. But rulings by the supreme court (in June I believe) saying what they were doing was wrong and illegal.
Getting away with something doesn't make it right.
that was more an act of the supreme court creating law instead of judging lawBertster7 wrote:
At the time of the supreme court ruling they were in contravention of article 3 of the Geneva convention. If the highest court in the US say so then they are the ones to decide. Bush's new bill absolved everybody of blame though.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Yes but what is the crime that US soldiers are making at Gitmo?Bertster7 wrote:
No convictions that I know of. But rulings by the supreme court (in June I believe) saying what they were doing was wrong and illegal.
Getting away with something doesn't make it right.
judicial activism fo ta loss
Iran aren't doing it to boost their own economy, it should have very little bearing on Iran fiscal state. It'll help the EU and be bad for the US. I doubt Iran care too much about helping the EU, but would like to see the US pissed off.kr@cker wrote:
it's so sad to see so many nations having to actively subvert another's economy over the span of decades in order to boost their own
wait til the mid east oil runs out, and we start tapping north america
The fact that the dollar seems to be in freefall at the moment also makes it quite a prudent decision.
It seems to me that the decision makes sense. Why trade oil in a weak free-falling currency? Especially when the home of said currency is the biggest ally of your sworn enemy - it doesn't make any sense.
I think Iran just wants attention.Bertster7 wrote:
Iran aren't doing it to boost their own economy, it should have very little bearing on Iran fiscal state. It'll help the EU and be bad for the US. I doubt Iran care too much about helping the EU, but would like to see the US pissed off.kr@cker wrote:
it's so sad to see so many nations having to actively subvert another's economy over the span of decades in order to boost their own
wait til the mid east oil runs out, and we start tapping north america
The fact that the dollar seems to be in freefall at the moment also makes it quite a prudent decision.
Not at all. The law is the Geneva convention. It's been around for a while. They just pointed out that the interpretation of this law by the current administration was incorrect.kr@cker wrote:
that was more an act of the supreme court creating law instead of judging lawBertster7 wrote:
At the time of the supreme court ruling they were in contravention of article 3 of the Geneva convention. If the highest court in the US say so then they are the ones to decide. Bush's new bill absolved everybody of blame though.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Yes but what is the crime that US soldiers are making at Gitmo?
judicial activism fo ta loss
TBH, I did not think terrorists were covered under the Geneva convention, which only a few countries follow anyway. So I disagree with the SC ruling.Bertster7 wrote:
Not at all. The law is the Geneva convention. It's been around for a while. They just pointed out that the interpretation of this law by the current administration was incorrect.kr@cker wrote:
that was more an act of the supreme court creating law instead of judging lawBertster7 wrote:
At the time of the supreme court ruling they were in contravention of article 3 of the Geneva convention. If the highest court in the US say so then they are the ones to decide. Bush's new bill absolved everybody of blame though.
judicial activism fo ta loss
Well my mistake then. I guess you can use the "they are worse" defense if you in fact have done no crimes or have the law changed afterwards.Bertster7 wrote:
At the time of the supreme court ruling they were in contravention of article 3 of the Geneva convention. If the highest court in the US say so then they are the ones to decide. Bush's new bill absolved everybody of blame though.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Yes but what is the crime that US soldiers are making at Gitmo?Bertster7 wrote:
No convictions that I know of. But rulings by the supreme court (in June I believe) saying what they were doing was wrong and illegal.
Getting away with something doesn't make it right.
But why would you use such comparison and take so defensive stand in the first place?
Why say Nazis were worse, when the original claim about your crimes is false?
Exactly. Iran making this decision makes perfect sense in every way. The US won't like it, but there's nothing they can do. An invasion of Iran would do even more damage to their economy, especially while bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.CameronPoe wrote:
It seems to me that the decision makes sense. Why trade oil in a weak free-falling currency? Especially when the home of said currency is the biggest ally of your sworn enemy - it doesn't make any sense.
Military overspend has traditionally been the US's greatest strength. Now it is becoming their greatest weakness.
You might disagree with it. That does not change the FACT that it is legally correct. Your OPINION however is not.usmarine2007 wrote:
TBH, I did not think terrorists were covered under the Geneva convention, which only a few countries follow anyway. So I disagree with the SC ruling.Bertster7 wrote:
Not at all. The law is the Geneva convention. It's been around for a while. They just pointed out that the interpretation of this law by the current administration was incorrect.kr@cker wrote:
that was more an act of the supreme court creating law instead of judging law
judicial activism fo ta loss
I still do not see where a crime was commited. They thought they did not fall under the GC, and there has never been anything before 9/11 to guide them in any way. No crime was commited. The SC stepped in and made things better, but no crime was commited.Bertster7 wrote:
You might disagree with it. That does not change the FACT that it is legally correct. Your OPINION however is not.usmarine2007 wrote:
TBH, I did not think terrorists were covered under the Geneva convention, which only a few countries follow anyway. So I disagree with the SC ruling.Bertster7 wrote:
Not at all. The law is the Geneva convention. It's been around for a while. They just pointed out that the interpretation of this law by the current administration was incorrect.
the GC specifically states that said terrorists waive their gc rights when they do things like disguise themselves as civilians, take shelter in mosques, use ambulances for troop transport, the supreme court created the part where the gc applied to them as well as creating law that non-citizens are protected by the constitution's citizen's rightsBertster7 wrote:
Not at all. The law is the Geneva convention. It's been around for a while. They just pointed out that the interpretation of this law by the current administration was incorrect.kr@cker wrote:
that was more an act of the supreme court creating law instead of judging lawBertster7 wrote:
At the time of the supreme court ruling they were in contravention of article 3 of the Geneva convention. If the highest court in the US say so then they are the ones to decide. Bush's new bill absolved everybody of blame though.
judicial activism fo ta loss
no where in said constitution is it stated that the sc is infallible
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-19 08:36:36)
Where? You find me a quote from the Geneva convention saying that. I have read article 3 thoroughly, it makes no such distinctions.kr@cker wrote:
the GC specifically states that said terrorists waive their gc rights when they do things like disguise themselves as civilians, take shelter in mosques, use ambulances for troop transport, the supreme court created the part where the gc applied to them as well as creating law that non-citizens are protected by the constitution's citizen's rightsBertster7 wrote:
Not at all. The law is the Geneva convention. It's been around for a while. They just pointed out that the interpretation of this law by the current administration was incorrect.kr@cker wrote:
that was more an act of the supreme court creating law instead of judging law
judicial activism fo ta loss
In fact it states that the protections offered by the convention apply even to those not classified as prisoners of war and also stipulates that all sentences must be:
Which the new bill passed by Bush (allowing closed military tribunals for suspects) contravenes.pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-19 08:40:58)
maybe that's because it's in article 4Bertster7 wrote:
Where? You find me a quote from the Geneva convention saying that. I have read article 3 thoroughly, it makes no such distinctions.kr@cker wrote:
the GC specifically states that said terrorists waive their gc rights when they do things like disguise themselves as civilians, take shelter in mosques, use ambulances for troop transport, the supreme court created the part where the gc applied to them as well as creating law that non-citizens are protected by the constitution's citizen's rightsBertster7 wrote:
Not at all. The law is the Geneva convention. It's been around for a while. They just pointed out that the interpretation of this law by the current administration was incorrect.
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-19 08:46:21)
ANWR http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.htmlDizik wrote:
It's not cost effective to drill for oil shale, and the amount of oil we would get from the ANWR is insignificant compared to the rest of the world's production. So, both of those points are moot.Colfax wrote:
Plus oil shale, the gulf find, and if people would stop bitching about drilling in the ANWR we'd be fine.
Potential is high
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
(STOP BITCHING!!! environmentalists.) http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm
Oil shale (http://energybulletin.net/3315.html)
"U.S. companies have developed and patented new technologies to develop oil shale that are both economical and environmentally friendly,"
We should probably get back on topic enough about GITMO
Last edited by Colfax (2006-12-19 08:43:55)
Which yet again makes no such distinctions. It does lay down conditions for who counts as a prisoner of war (not the conditions you mentioned (although you have now added some of the real ones)). But in Article 3 it specifically states that it doesn't matter whether they are prisoners of war or not, they will still be afforded the protections of the convention.kr@cker wrote:
maybe that's because it's in article 4Bertster7 wrote:
Where? You find me a quote from the Geneva convention saying that. I have read article 3 thoroughly, it makes no such distinctions.kr@cker wrote:
the GC specifically states that said terrorists waive their gc rights when they do things like disguise themselves as civilians, take shelter in mosques, use ambulances for troop transport, the supreme court created the part where the gc applied to them as well as creating law that non-citizens are protected by the constitution's citizen's rights
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-19 09:00:57)
anwar is about the size of south carolina, the amount of land needed for pumping oil is about the size of a golf course (not counting pipline, which as was discovered in prudhoe bay, is actually a boon for the porcupine caribou's reproduction rates)Colfax wrote:
ANWR http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.htmlDizik wrote:
It's not cost effective to drill for oil shale, and the amount of oil we would get from the ANWR is insignificant compared to the rest of the world's production. So, both of those points are moot.Colfax wrote:
Plus oil shale, the gulf find, and if people would stop bitching about drilling in the ANWR we'd be fine.
Potential is high
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
(STOP BITCHING!!! environmentalists.) http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm
Oil shale (http://energybulletin.net/3315.html)
"U.S. companies have developed and patented new technologies to develop oil shale that are both economical and environmentally friendly,"
We should probably get back on topic enough about GITMO
ANWR isn't really on topic either.Colfax wrote:
ANWR http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.htmlDizik wrote:
It's not cost effective to drill for oil shale, and the amount of oil we would get from the ANWR is insignificant compared to the rest of the world's production. So, both of those points are moot.Colfax wrote:
Plus oil shale, the gulf find, and if people would stop bitching about drilling in the ANWR we'd be fine.
Potential is high
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
(STOP BITCHING!!! environmentalists.) http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm
Oil shale (http://energybulletin.net/3315.html)
"U.S. companies have developed and patented new technologies to develop oil shale that are both economical and environmentally friendly,"
We should probably get back on topic enough about GITMO
It's about oil, but totally unrelated. Just as many people will continue to buy oil from Iran, this thread is (should be) about economics.
i see no listing in article 3 of exactly what rights are considered indispensible, apart from "a" trial, doesn't say anything about a "quick and speedy" one, nor a "jury of their peers"
No, it says this:kr@cker wrote:
i see no listing in article 3 of exactly what rights are considered indispensible, apart from "a" trial, doesn't say anything about a "quick and speedy" one, nor a "jury of their peers"
Those judicial guarantees are having a quick and speedy, open trial by a jury.regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples
A closed military tribunal is not a regularly constituted court.
This topic has been gone over and over and every notable legal authority has interpreted this the same way. You may not agree with the rights laid down by the convention but they are there and are legally binding. This is a very clear cut issue, arguing about it won't change the facts.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-19 09:03:45)
of course in your opinion, "notable" means whoever agrees with bertster as apparently all the legal authorities that don't agree are not, again, no specific listing of trial by jury, only a specific listin by trial, again supreme court /= infallible...........only the pope is
I just want to know where the crime is?Bertster7 wrote:
This topic has been gone over and over and every notable legal authority has interpreted this the same way. You may not agree with the rights laid down by the convention but they are there and are legally binding. This is a very clear cut issue, arguing about it won't change the facts.
there wasn't, even assuming the sc is correct you'd still have to prove criminal intent, you'd have to show that the admin knew the actions to be illegal and purposefully committed them anyway, as opposed to just showing their interpretation wrongusmarine2007 wrote:
I just want to know where the crime is?Bertster7 wrote:
This topic has been gone over and over and every notable legal authority has interpreted this the same way. You may not agree with the rights laid down by the convention but they are there and are legally binding. This is a very clear cut issue, arguing about it won't change the facts.
wait, what was the topic? something about iran switching yo-yo's?
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-19 09:18:05)