Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Holy ****! (Iraq) Helo shot down, up to 35 aboard, 20+ casualties

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 23
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 template Next
  • #301
    Originally posted by techumseh
    The American government will not dissavow the use of torture there.
    What the CIA does "out of sight" is in a black hole.

    What uniformed military personnel do isn't, especially when it occurs on a US base. The UCMJ provides very strict criminal penalties for torture of prisoners.

    What isn't excluded at Gitmo is "coercive interrogation" which covers a lot of psycholigical techniques that are manipulative, but not torturous in nature. Torture is expedient for obtaining low level general information from prisoners, it is not efficient for obtaining ongoing, high level, high accuracy information, or any information of a complex nature.
    When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

    Comment

    • #302
      Originally posted by Oerdin
      Is anyone besides techumseh surprised that people who wanted to commit suicide attacks are now trying to commit just plain suicide? I know I'm not.

      BTW techumseh I don't think you are a bad guy and I do think you are arguing your case well but I believe the underlying assumptions you have made to reach your conclusions are based upon false premises.
      Based on your and MtG's answers, I revert to my original premise. The only thing that will stop US aggression is enough body bags. As Dubya said, "Bring 'em on!"
      Tecumseh's Village, Home of Fine Civilization Scenarios

      www.tecumseh.150m.com

      Comment

      • #303
        Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


        At least they'd have the balls to go out and do something to (theoretically) better the world. For mom, apple pie and oil. Or whatever floats their boats, or Mountain Navies, as the case may be.
        So many good wars to fight, eg...

        US lawyers have started a war of ****ed-up legal practice against us, and we shall treat every US tort lawyer as un unlawful combattant...
        “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

        Comment

        • #304
          So you agree that you have been wrong and that there is no legal rights granted to unlawful combatants by the laws of war? I agree that it would be nice to see but my point is that the G&HCs do not require it.
          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

          Comment

          • #305
            Originally posted by Oerdin

            Once again you are stating an opinion which is not supported by the actual text of the treaties. The G&HCs expressly remove any and all protections for persons deemed to be unlawful combatants. No trials are required, no court hearings of any kind, in fact they are subject to summary execution.
            I'll just comment on that one. First you evade the issue of procedural guarantee in actually ESTABLISHING who is an unlawful combattant. Second, unlawful combatants are not further protected under the conventions, but the conventions do not remove protections under other legal instruments, namely general human rights laws.

            Your claim of them being outside any law requires an argument that the Humanitarian law of war seeks to derogate Human Rights Law, which would of course be utter bull****.
            “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

            Comment

            • #306
              Originally posted by HershOstropoler


              So many good wars to fight, eg...

              US lawyers have started a war of ****ed-up legal practice against us, and we shall treat every US tort lawyer as un unlawful combattant...
              Promise? If you were eligible to run for office, you could almost get elected President on that platform.
              When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

              Comment

              • #307
                The dumbest thing I ever heard of was laws for war. Dumb idea to start with. Nations should be allowed to execute POW's if they see fit. Why didn't they before? Bargainig chips. war should either be total or not at all. All this lawyering and law writing is quite a facetious attempt to make the shedding of blood some how just, because in an attempt at imperial conquest, someone made sure not to use shotguns and dum-dum bullets, or someone defending thier hometown put human feces on their bungi sticks. But now the people are distracted, who is the bad guy, the good guy, who follows the "rules", blah blah blah.
                Pentagenesis for Civ III
                Pentagenesis for Civ IV in progress
                Pentagenesis Gallery

                Comment

                • #308
                  Originally posted by HershOstropoler
                  First you evade the issue of procedural guarantee in actually ESTABLISHING who is an unlawful combattant.
                  The G&HC do not specify any procedural guarantees nor does it specify how one goes about establishing who is an unlawful combatant other then to say that it must be done in accordance to the customs and laws of war. According to the customs of war if you are found to be a soldier out of uniform, a spy, or an unconvential combatant then you would be either shot on sight or captured and interrogated.

                  Second, unlawful combatants are not further protected under the conventions, but the conventions do not remove protections under other legal instruments, namely general human rights laws.
                  The preamble of the G&HCs state that their purpose is to provide the legal frame work under which wars will be conducted. Further it is to define what is permissable or not permisable; in short their purpose is to be the laws of war. If it is war time then the G&HC are the the treaties under which all conduct is to be judged.

                  It would be interesting to see what legal authority treaties signed (such as any human rights treaties) subsiquent to the G&HCs have over warfare. Do you have any specific examples which would pertain to the Gitmo case?
                  Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                  Comment

                  • #309
                    edit - at Neomega's post.



                    Well, that just settles it then.
                    When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

                    Comment

                    • #310
                      Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


                      Promise? If you were eligible to run for office, you could almost get elected President on that platform.
                      What, "almost"?
                      “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                      Comment

                      • #311
                        We have a few whiny liberals who'd think your methods were too harsh, even for tort lawyers.
                        When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

                        Comment

                        • #312
                          I truly feel for the familys... but it is a war, and a war comes with casultys.
                          "You should count all humans as your kinfolk and the whole world as your foster country."
                          - Queen Kristina

                          Comment

                          • #313
                            "If it is war time then the G&HC are the the treaties under which all conduct is to be judged."

                            That is a typical layman error. As a default rule, every instrument has to be applied according to its own scope. Second, no instrument shall be construed to exclude others unless it explicitly does so. Third, if it seeks to exclude another instrument, the conflict has to be resolved, which is far from simple especially for multinational treaties, just read the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law. It gets even more complex with other sources of international law, and when you have ius cogens issues - the latter can easily arise when we are talking about torture.

                            As an example for this, I doubt that the anti-genocide convention is excluded from governing warfare. But it also has a broader scope.

                            "It would be interesting to see what legal authority treaties signed (such as any human rights treaties) subsiquent to the G&HCs have over warfare. Do you have any specific examples which would pertain to the Gitmo case?"

                            Human rights treaties usually have clauses about their application in war or, broader, emergencies. Some key articles cannot be suspended even in times of war; I relate you to Art 15 ECHR or Art 4 of the UN Human Rights Covenant II.

                            Their exact role for Guantanamo is another matter, especially in how far the US is a party, the territorial scope, and US reservations. I would have to research that for an answer, and so would you.
                            “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                            Comment

                            • #314
                              Can't we just save ourselves all that trouble and use a 200 meter by 2 meter slit trench and a few .45s or M4A1s?
                              When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

                              Comment

                              • #315
                                I consider a simple tribunal procedure more effective.
                                “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 template Next
                                Working...
                                X