44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Linky
I guess Bush can't go on vacation to Malaysia or any countries that extradite there (assuming any countries extradite there). Considering the crimes that Bush was convicted of, Obama could probably be convicted too. He's still running gitmo. But yeah, this news probably won't affect Bush much.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Awesome.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response. 
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. People are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
221
Post by: Frazzled
LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. Foreigners who have no rights and tried to kill Americans are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
Corrected your typo. But yea its awesome. The US should respond with a very polite "oops sorry, did we just cut all your foreign aid? Oh wow, you say your navy just mysteriously sank? We're as shocked as you are."
91
Post by: Hordini
LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. People are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
Barring a few of the more high profile exceptions, aren't most of the prisoners people who got picked up as enemy combatants in Iraq or Afghanistan? That's a little bit different than just being "whisked away." And how is it different than basically any prisoner of war camp ever? If someone gets captured during a fight with US forces, you don't lock them up to charge them with a crime and make them stand trial. You lock them up until the fighting is over in order to keep them off the battlefield without killing them.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Frazzled wrote:LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. Foreigners who have no rights and tried to kill Americans are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
Corrected your typo. But yea its awesome. The US should respond with a very polite "oops sorry, did we just cut all your foreign aid? Oh wow, you say your navy just mysteriously sank? We're as shocked as you are."
How do we know if they killed people IF THEY DIDN'T GET TRIALS?
221
Post by: Frazzled
LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. Foreigners who have no rights and tried to kill Americans are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
Corrected your typo. But yea its awesome. The US should respond with a very polite "oops sorry, did we just cut all your foreign aid? Oh wow, you say your navy just mysteriously sank? We're as shocked as you are."
How do we know if they killed people IF THEY DIDN'T GET TRIALS?
They were prisoners caught shooting at US troops is usually an excellent indicator. 
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Frazzled wrote:They were prisoners caught shooting at US troops is usually an excellent indicator.
[sarcasm]Yes, because it's a known, sourced and well documented fact that every single prisoner in Gitmo was caught shooting at US troops.[/sarcasm]
53059
Post by: dæl
They should do the same to Blair, i'd happily drive him to the airport.
Guantanamo is just evil, and the Foreign office and MI5 are just as guilty, allowing the torture of people they knew were working in a branch of Currys when it was alleged they were at a terrorist training camp.
91
Post by: Hordini
Frazzled wrote:LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. Foreigners who have no rights and tried to kill Americans are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
Corrected your typo. But yea its awesome. The US should respond with a very polite "oops sorry, did we just cut all your foreign aid? Oh wow, you say your navy just mysteriously sank? We're as shocked as you are."
How do we know if they killed people IF THEY DIDN'T GET TRIALS?
They were prisoners caught shooting at US troops is usually an excellent indicator.
Yeah, you beat me to it Frazzled. I don't get why so many people have such a hard time figuring out how the whole prisoner of war thing works, and why it doesn't always involve trials if the guys who got captured didn't commit any war crimes. If you don't want to get stuck in Guantanamo for years, don't take pot shots at US or coalition soldiers. Automatically Appended Next Post: LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:They were prisoners caught shooting at US troops is usually an excellent indicator.
[sarcasm]Yes, because it's a known, sourced and well documented fact that every single prisoner in Gitmo was caught shooting at US troops.[/sarcasm]
I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
752
Post by: Polonius
As a rule, combatents dont' get trials. The thought is, fighting as a soldier is not a crime. Getting captured is unfortunate, but that means you get to sit out the conflict.
Note that this typically only applies to organized forces. For non-uniformed fighters, the geneva conventions don't strictly apply.
What's interesting about the gitmo controversy is that it's really only a controversy because they were moved out of theater and interrogated. As non-uniformed fighters, IIRC, they could simply be executed by military tribunals. Especially given the low numbers involved, that sort of policy would probably not have resulted in substantial controversy.
Neither domestic criminal law nor international war crimes law really cover insurgents.
91
Post by: Hordini
dæl wrote:They should do the same to Blair, i'd happily drive him to the airport.
Guantanamo is just evil, and the Foreign office and MI5 are just as guilty, allowing the torture of people they knew were working in a branch of Currys when it was alleged they were at a terrorist training camp.
Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in doing some further reading, if you've got a link or two.
752
Post by: Polonius
Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
there is literally no way of knowing.
The problem is that any given source of any information has every reason to lie (the US military and government vs. the prisoner).
Your view on the issue will almost assuredly come down to how much you trust the Bush administration.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
We don't know. Maybe if we gave them trials we could find out.
But basically, what we do is whisk people away and then torture them because there's a chance that they might be useful to us. And for some reason, very few people view this as immoral.
752
Post by: Polonius
LoneLictor wrote:Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
We don't know. Maybe if we gave them trials we could find out.
But basically, what we do is whisk people away and then torture them because there's a chance that they might be useful to us. And for some reason, very few people view this as immoral.
Welcome to international relations when you're a superpower. Individual morality seldom controls.
Also, while I doubt every gitmo prisoner was a confirmed jihadist trying to kill americans, let's not paint the situation as American soldiers grabbing random people from their beds in the night to torture them for a decade.
As always, nuance is your friend.
91
Post by: Hordini
Polonius wrote:Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
there is literally no way of knowing.
The problem is that any given source of any information has every reason to lie (the US military and government vs. the prisoner).
Your view on the issue will almost assuredly come down to how much you trust the Bush administration.
Well, and how much you trust Obama and his administration, since he promised to close it and then decided it was so important it needed to stay open. Maybe it says something about the situation that two Presidents from opposing parties decided to keep it open, one even going to far as to go back on a pretty significant campaign promise to do it.
LoneLictor wrote:Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
We don't know. Maybe if we gave them trials we could find out.
But basically, what we do is whisk people away and then torture them because there's a chance that they might be useful to us. And for some reason, very few people view this as immoral.
Why should we give an enemy combatant a trial? What crime should we charge them with? Again, the point of taking prisoners of war isn't to charge them with crimes and punish them, it's to keep them off the battlefield without killing them. Should we just send them back to Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever to be recycled into the local insurgent groups and militias, until they get killed or recaptured, and possibly killing other people in the process?
29110
Post by: AustonT
LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Barack "The Failure" Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconsitutional thing imaginable. People are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
I made your post bipartisan. You are welcome.
To my knowledge the constitution does not grant rights to the citizens of other countries.
91
Post by: Hordini
That situation sounds unfortunate dael, and like I said, I'm not saying that it's impossible that there are people in Guantanamo that shouldn't be. However, that doesn't mean that it should become standard procedure to charge combatants picked up in firefights in Iraq or Afghanistan with crimes and put them on trial, when the point is keeping them off the battlefield. Even if Guantanamo closed, we'd still need a place to hold prisoners of war, and they would just end up being held somewhere else.
752
Post by: Polonius
Hordini wrote:Polonius wrote:Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
there is literally no way of knowing.
The problem is that any given source of any information has every reason to lie (the US military and government vs. the prisoner).
Your view on the issue will almost assuredly come down to how much you trust the Bush administration.
Well, and how much you trust Obama and his administration, since he promised to close it and then decided it was so important it needed to stay open. Maybe it says something about the situation that two Presidents from opposing parties decided to keep it open, one even going to far as to go back on a pretty significant campaign promise to do it.
True, although I think most Obama defenders would point out that far fewer remained at Gitmo under Obama.
Myself? I don't lose a lot of sleep about it.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response. It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. Foreigners who have no rights and tried to kill Americans are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
Corrected your typo. But yea its awesome. The US should respond with a very polite "oops sorry, did we just cut all your foreign aid? Oh wow, you say your navy just mysteriously sank? We're as shocked as you are."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay Where is the comic book that you live in? Does Nicholas Cage own it? It's probably an original.
91
Post by: Hordini
Polonius wrote:Hordini wrote:Polonius wrote:Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
there is literally no way of knowing.
The problem is that any given source of any information has every reason to lie (the US military and government vs. the prisoner).
Your view on the issue will almost assuredly come down to how much you trust the Bush administration.
Well, and how much you trust Obama and his administration, since he promised to close it and then decided it was so important it needed to stay open. Maybe it says something about the situation that two Presidents from opposing parties decided to keep it open, one even going to far as to go back on a pretty significant campaign promise to do it.
True, although I think most Obama defenders would point out that far fewer remained at Gitmo under Obama.
Myself? I don't lose a lot of sleep about it.
Well, that's fine, but there were never a lot of prisoners there to begin with. I think everyone agrees that if there are prisoners there who really don't belong, then they should be released, but I also think a good portion of the prisoners being held there (which, as has been said, isn't that many to begin with) are most likely there for a good reason.
I'm not losing too much sleep over it either, quite honestly. Don't shoot at US or coalition troops and don't go to Taliban or Al Qaeda training camps and your chances of ending up in Guantanamo will be drastically reduced.
53059
Post by: dæl
A prison for combatants, don't have a problem with that. A place to torture people for years on end, with no burden of proof on whether they deserve to be there, thats wrong.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. People are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
Obama's tried to close Guantanamo for years.
But congress passed a law prohibiting transporting any of its prisoners to the US, including for trial.
So keep the blame where it belongs.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
You say years on end, but KSM was the most heavily water-boarded individual at Gitmo and it all happened in one month.
I read the Red Cross report and there is nothing there that hasn't been used on US Soldiers as training with the exception of water boarding. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kid_Kyoto wrote:LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. People are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
Obama's tried to close Guantanamo for years.
But congress passed a law prohibiting transporting any of its prisoners to the US, including for trial.
So keep the blame where it belongs.
Ah, you mean the heavily Democrat controlled congress from 2009 til 2011?
41945
Post by: InquisitorVaron
It may not be right but something I just want to say is.
There's two planes one's planning to be bombed, some information is gained through torture by another country.
How many people will pick the bombed plane?
I don't agree with torture but in cases like that we might aswell use it.
This is different, the army are not civs. They understand the dangers, torture shouldn't happen but keeping them away from the battlefield I agree with.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:You say years on end, but KSM was the most heavily water-boarded individual at Gitmo and it all happened in one month.
I read the Red Cross report and there is nothing there that hasn't been used on US Soldiers as training with the exception of water boarding.
Non lethal Chemical weapons are used on US soldiers while training. Forced exercise (to the point of collapse) is used on US soldiers during training. They don't do a lot of torturing at Guantanamo, generally that kind of information is time sensitive so they just have it done in Turkey or (previously) Egypt. You send people to Guantanamo when you want them to dissapear.
752
Post by: Polonius
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So keep the blame where it belongs.
Ah, you mean the heavily Democrat controlled congress from 2009 til 2011?
I'm glad to see we can focus on what's truely important: partisan bickering.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:You say years on end, but KSM was the most heavily water-boarded individual at Gitmo and it all happened in one month.
I read the Red Cross report and there is nothing there that hasn't been used on US Soldiers as training with the exception of water boarding.
So...no exceptions
CDR Frank Wead wrote:Then it was time for the dreaded waterboard. What I didn’t know then, but I do now, is that as in all interrogations, both for real world hostile terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) and in S.E.R.E. a highly trained group of doctors, psychologists, interrogators, and strap-in and strap-out rescue teams are always present. My first experience on the “waterboard” was to be laying on my back, on a board with my body at a 30 degree slope, feet in the air, head down, face-up. The straps are all-confining, with the only movement of your body that of the ability to move your head. Slowly water is poured in your face, up your nose, and some in your mouth. The questions from interrogators and amounts of water increase with each unsuccessful response. Soon they have your complete attention as you begin to believe you are going to drown.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23220
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Polonius wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So keep the blame where it belongs.
Ah, you mean the heavily Democrat controlled congress from 2009 til 2011?
I'm glad to see we can focus on what's truely important: partisan bickering.
I'd focus more on the inherent indecency of Democracy. No state was willing to take detainees as no state legislature wanted to do the right thing to it's own political detriment.
53059
Post by: dæl
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: there is nothing there that hasn't been used on US Soldiers as training with the exception of water boarding.
fear that we might be killed at any minute
two-and-a-half-year ordeal has also left them with serious physical problems including knee and back pain - because of the positions in which they were shackled - and, in the case of Rhuhel Ahmed, permanent eye damage.
cold, dehydration, hunger and uncertainty as well as dysentery and injuries.
punched, kicked, slapped or struck with a rifle butt at least 30 or 40 times
"I was taken ... for a so-called cavity search ... told to bend over and then felt something shoved up my anus. I don't know what it was but it was very painful"
systematically deprived of sleep and that they were kept on a restricted diet to weaken them
the level of fear was sky-high. We were terrified we might be killed at any minute. The guards would say, 'Nobody knows you're here, all they know is that you're missing and we could kill you and no one would know,'
months in isolation and on a block with non-English-speaking detainees,
rat, snake and scorpion-infested cages in which the men lived, exposed to blistering daytime temperatures, freezing nights and torrential rain.
short-shackling [when detainees are chained into a squatting position] started, loud music playing in interrogation, shaving beards and hair, putting people in cells naked, taking away people's 'comfort' items [eg towels] ... moving some people every two hours, depriving them of sleep, the use of a/c [air-conditioned, cold] air.
keeping prisoners naked for more than 30 days, threatening by dogs, and extreme temperatures.
I seriously don't think that any American soldier has been subjected to this level of prolonged psychological anguish
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Hordini wrote:Polonius wrote:Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
there is literally no way of knowing.
The problem is that any given source of any information has every reason to lie (the US military and government vs. the prisoner).
Your view on the issue will almost assuredly come down to how much you trust the Bush administration.
Well, and how much you trust Obama and his administration, since he promised to close it and then decided it was so important it needed to stay open. Maybe it says something about the situation that two Presidents from opposing parties decided to keep it open, one even going to far as to go back on a pretty significant campaign promise to do it.
LoneLictor wrote:Hordini wrote:I'm not saying there's no chance that some people who are in Guantanamo might be there for the wrong reasons, but seriously, aren't the majority of them enemy combatants?
We don't know. Maybe if we gave them trials we could find out.
But basically, what we do is whisk people away and then torture them because there's a chance that they might be useful to us. And for some reason, very few people view this as immoral.
Why should we give an enemy combatant a trial? What crime should we charge them with? Again, the point of taking prisoners of war isn't to charge them with crimes and punish them, it's to keep them off the battlefield without killing them. Should we just send them back to Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever to be recycled into the local insurgent groups and militias, until they get killed or recaptured, and possibly killing other people in the process?
If they are a PoWs then Guantanemo has broken the Geneva Convention by denying them contact with their families, not to mention torture of prisoners. So your government would be guilty of a war crime.
Automatically Appended Next Post: InquisitorVaron wrote:It may not be right but something I just want to say is.
There's two planes one's planning to be bombed, some information is gained through torture by another country.
How many people will pick the bombed plane?
I don't agree with torture but in cases like that we might aswell use it.
This is different, the army are not civs. They understand the dangers, torture shouldn't happen but keeping them away from the battlefield I agree with.
You have no guarantee that information gained through torture is accurate. Someone will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to make the torture stop.
752
Post by: Polonius
A Town Called Malus wrote:If they are a PoWs then Guantanemo has broken the Geneva Convention by denying them contact with their families, not to mention torture of prisoners. So your government would be guilty of a war crime.
Except they aren't. Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include: 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I); that of carrying arms openly; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support. 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. Good luck finding gitmo prisoners that meet those rules. Nobody disagrees that POWs should not be treated like that. Which would be relevant if they were POWs.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The partisanship on both sides of this makes my face hurt.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Polonius wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:If they are a PoWs then Guantanemo has broken the Geneva Convention by denying them contact with their families, not to mention torture of prisoners. So your government would be guilty of a war crime.
Except they aren't. Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include: 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I); that of carrying arms openly; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support. 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. Good luck finding gitmo prisoners that meet those rules. Nobody disagrees that POWs should not be treated like that. Which would be relevant if they were POWs.
So if they are not PoWs they must be found guilty of a crime to be incarcerated and so must stand trial.
53059
Post by: dæl
Polonius wrote:
Nobody disagrees that POWs should not be treated like that. Which would be relevant if they were POWs.
So because they don't fit certain criteria they are fair game?
752
Post by: Polonius
Melissia wrote:The partisanship on both sides of this makes my face hurt.
I think there's an element of that, but ignorance of International law is a larger driving factor.
Now, that's understandable, as international law does a great job of legislating how the last major war should have been fought, but with few exceptions has done little to prevent future war crimes. (The western european front in WWII being a notable counterexample.)
the problem is, most people aren't comfortable with our government keeping people locked up for years. Most peope see that sometimes we need to. the problem is that we don't know who we've locked up and why.
We were asked, in 2001, to trust the Bush administration that they were doing the right thing. For many people, that was a tall order.
Of course, one thing that most people forget is that we don't know everything. In international relations and security, there just isn't much partisanship. What there is a large, professional, cadre of men and women who make a career out of finding and keeping secrets. In the modern world, the idea that secrets are actually kept seems quaint, but the big secret is that professionals do it every day.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
A Town Called Malus wrote:
You have no guarantee that information gained through torture is accurate. Someone will tell you whatever they think you want to hear to make the torture stop.
An illiterate thug beating you with a pipe for information has no way of verifying your information. The CIA, NSA, Armed Forces and anyone else interrogating these guys can sort the the wheat from the chaff. Professional interrogators don't take your word for it.
I also find it interesting that Malaysia of all places convicted Bush of war crimes. This is same country notorious for caning and is ranked 131st out of 175 by Reporters without Borders in freedom of the press. Champions of civil and human rights indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Malaysia
752
Post by: Polonius
A Town Called Malus wrote:So if they are not PoWs they must be found guilty of a crime to be incarcerated and so must stand trial.
Based on what law? Traditionally, non-uniformed forces, be they commandos, partisans, insurgents, or whatever have enjoyed zero legal protection. If you fire on soldiers when you aren't a soldier, your life is forfeit. Automatically Appended Next Post: dæl wrote:So because they don't fit certain criteria they are fair game?
Under international law, yeah. Look, as individuals we are bound by various rules. Laws, social norms, and personal ethics. People live their lives based on those in different orders, but for the most part people are generally law abiding, usually moral, and often conform to norms. Nations have no morality, little law, and few if any social norms. The more powerful a nation, the more it can flaut norms, and even violate international law. Look at it this way: there is no law against lying. I mean, you can't when under oath, but you can lie all you'd like to your mom or girlfriend or boss. That doesn't mean that people always lie. They are bound by some combination of morality and social norms to tell the truth.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Polonius wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:So if they are not PoWs they must be found guilty of a crime to be incarcerated and so must stand trial.
Based on what law? Traditionally, non-uniformed forces, be they commandos, partisans, insurgents, or whatever have enjoyed zero legal protection. If you fire on soldiers when you aren't a soldier, your life is forfeit.
You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals. If you do not stand trial then you cannot be found guilty and therefore cannot be a criminal. I would also point out that your Supreme Court ruled that all those detained at GITMO are entitled to the same protection under your Constitution as you are. As for your point on shooting at soldiers, how many of the prisoners at Guantanemo have actually shot at soldiers? How can you say that they have without evidence being presented in a court of law, be it civilian or military?
752
Post by: Polonius
A Town Called Malus wrote:You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals. If you do not stand trial then you cannot be found guilty and therefore cannot be a criminal.
Again, under what law?
You can lock up many more kinds of people than that, actually. Those accused of a crime. Those with a dangerous mental illness. Those with contagious and dangerous disease.
They all share a common thread: when the safety of the state is at great enough risk, a person can be held.
Regardless, find me a law that applies to Afghanistan or Iraq that prohibits it.
As for your point on shooting at soldiers, how many of the prisoners at Guantanemo have actually shot at soldiers?
Nobody knows. As I pointed out above, both sides have every reason to lie.
5534
Post by: dogma
Polonius wrote:
Based on what law?
Traditionally, non-uniformed forces, be they commandos, partisans, insurgents, or whatever have enjoyed zero legal protection.
If you fire on soldiers when you aren't a soldier, your life is forfeit.
If the unlawful combatant is not from a co-belligerent state or a neutral state he retains vague protections under GCIV, which essentially amount to the right to a fair trial; though there is no stipulation that it be a civilian trial.
752
Post by: Polonius
dogma wrote:Polonius wrote:
Based on what law?
Traditionally, non-uniformed forces, be they commandos, partisans, insurgents, or whatever have enjoyed zero legal protection.
If you fire on soldiers when you aren't a soldier, your life is forfeit.
If the unlawful combatant is not from a co-belligerent state or a neutral state he retains vague protections under GCIV, which essentially amount to the right to a fair trial; though there is no stipulation that it be a civilian trial.
Aren't most Gitmo prisoner's non-local? I didn't think we kept many afghans or iraqis there, but I could easily be wrong.
I'll agree that not even having the pretense of a hearing seems odd.
53059
Post by: dæl
What has Guantanamo actually achieved apart from maybe the radicalisation of people that were once moderate, possibly even supported intervention against the despotic regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq.
As for the interrogators being professional, they still use polygraphs, which are very unreliable, hence inadmissible in European courts. And thats in a standard environment, nevermind accounting for the stress levels of those interrogated, after months, if not years of psychological abuse.
5534
Post by: dogma
A Town Called Malus wrote:
You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals.
No, that's incorrect. You can detain virtually anyone in a combat zone until such time that their status relative to international law can be determined by a qualified tribunal. Until this determination is made the detainee is a de factor protected person. After the fact they may be considered a POW, an unlawful combatant, or they may remain a protected person.
Outside of certain narrow circumstances (basically if they're nationals of the country in which they were engaged in hostilities), unlawful combatants have the rights granted to them at the behest of the detaining nation.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Polonius wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals. If you do not stand trial then you cannot be found guilty and therefore cannot be a criminal.
Again, under what law? You can lock up many more kinds of people than that, actually. Those accused of a crime. Those with a dangerous mental illness. Those with contagious and dangerous disease. They all share a common thread: when the safety of the state is at great enough risk, a person can be held. Regardless, find me a law that applies to Afghanistan or Iraq that prohibits it.
1) Someone accused of a crime. - Very few of the prisoners at GITMO have actually been accused of a crime. 2) Those with a dangerous mental illness. - That would require a Doctor to go before a court and testify that the person needed to be locked up for their own and others protection. 3) Those with contagious diseases. - Again, this requires a doctor and you're allowed out when you get better, which is decided by a certified doctor. As for your point on shooting at soldiers, how many of the prisoners at Guantanemo have actually shot at soldiers?
Nobody knows. As I pointed out above, both sides have every reason to lie.
Right, so them shooting at your soldiers cannot be used as an argument for why they are incarcerated.
5534
Post by: dogma
Polonius wrote:
Aren't most Gitmo prisoner's non-local? I didn't think we kept many afghans or iraqis there, but I could easily be wrong.
I honestly don't know, but my guess would be that's the case as it would seem counterproductive to extradite Iraqi and Afghan nationals. Though, at least in the case of Afghanistan, who counts as a national is difficult to determine; both because of lax reporting and just how long the Mujaheddin have been active there.
Polonius wrote:
I'll agree that not even having the pretense of a hearing seems odd.
Generally there has to be a hearing to classify any detainee, though how thorough the process is can obviously be debated.
752
Post by: Polonius
A Town Called Malus wrote:Polonius wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:You can legally lock up two types of people, PoWs and Criminals. If you do not stand trial then you cannot be found guilty and therefore cannot be a criminal.
Again, under what law?
You can lock up many more kinds of people than that, actually. Those accused of a crime. Those with a dangerous mental illness. Those with contagious and dangerous disease.
They all share a common thread: when the safety of the state is at great enough risk, a person can be held.
Regardless, find me a law that applies to Afghanistan or Iraq that prohibits it.
1) Someone accused of a crime. - Very few of the prisoners at GITMO have actually been accused of a crime.
2) Those with a dangerous mental illness. - That would require a Doctor to go before a court and testify that the person needed to be locked up for their own and others protection.
3) Those with contagious diseases. - Again, this requires a doctor and you're allowed out when you get better, which is decided by a certified doctor.
You misunderstnad. I'm not saying that the gitmo prisoners qualify under those rules, only pointing out that you had an overly simple view of the matter in a very concrete way, in much the same as you have an overly naive view of the matter in the more abstract way.
Speaking of which, you still cannot come up any positive law to support your claim.
Right, so them shooting at your soldiers cannot be used as an argument for why they are incarcerated.
I suppose not. I basically see two options: 1) there is some reason to suspect that the person is dangerous and worth detaining, or 2) The US is simply being a dick.
Plenty would agree with the second possibiltiy, but it's probably more the first.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Hordini wrote:LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconstitutional thing imaginable. People are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
Barring a few of the more high profile exceptions, aren't most of the prisoners people who got picked up as enemy combatants in Iraq or Afghanistan? That's a little bit different than just being "whisked away." And how is it different than basically any prisoner of war camp ever? If someone gets captured during a fight with US forces, you don't lock them up to charge them with a crime and make them stand trial. You lock them up until the fighting is over in order to keep them off the battlefield without killing them .
And you water board them to maintain hygiene?
47898
Post by: A Kvlt Ghost
Malaysia owns
39004
Post by: biccat
As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.
Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.
Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yeah, We will roll out the red carpet to his house and get the arrestors a parade afterwords.
29110
Post by: AustonT
hotsauceman1 wrote:Yeah, We will roll out the red carpet to his house and get the arrestors a parade afterwords.
In your wildest pinko dreams.
27391
Post by: purplefood
biccat wrote:As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.
Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.
Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.
What would happen if he murdered 20 people?
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
biccat wrote:As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.
Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.
Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.
The article itself has said it probably won't achieve anything. The most they can do is recommend it to the International Criminal Court.
Though if the former president Bush rocked up in Malaysia, how would that turn out? Exactly who would be jumping to his rescue?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Hazardous Harry wrote:biccat wrote:As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.
Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.
Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.
The article itself has said it probably won't achieve anything. The most they can do is recommend it to the International Criminal Court.
Though if the former president Bush rocked up in Malaysia, how would that turn out? Exactly who would be jumping to his rescue?
I would imagine his Secret Service detail if they could pry themselves away from those Malaysian hookers.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
AustonT wrote:I would imagine his Secret Service detail if they could pry themselves away from those Malaysian hookers.
The Secret Service are going to crack open a Malaysian prison to extract someone convicted of war crimes? That cannot look good for the US on the world stage, given how public the whole thing would be.
53059
Post by: dæl
Who decides who gets tried at the Hague for war crimes? Would that be the International Criminal Court? It has been proved that Iraq was based on evidence that was "sexed up." So how is it ok to kill 100,000+ civilians on false pretences? I'm sure that Assad will get the full weight of law thrown at him eventually, but not Bush and Blair.
39004
Post by: biccat
purplefood wrote:biccat wrote:As with other countries who have tried this trick, I would love to see them try to do anything about it.
Seriously. Try to arrest a former president. See what happens.
Hint: it won't end well for Malaysia.
What would happen if he murdered 20 people?
Hypothetically, he would be impeached and tried in the United States.
But if he could claim those murders were official acts, then he would be immune from prosecution.
Also, this is relevant.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Polonius wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So keep the blame where it belongs.
Ah, you mean the heavily Democrat controlled congress from 2009 til 2011?
I'm glad to see we can focus on what's truely important: partisan bickering.
Yep. Given the chance to stand up for the American justice system and human rights they chickened out.
Cowardice is a bipartisan issue.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Polonius wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So keep the blame where it belongs.
Ah, you mean the heavily Democrat controlled congress from 2009 til 2011?
I'm glad to see we can focus on what's truely important: partisan bickering.
Yep. Given the chance to stand up for the American justice system and human rights they chickened out.
Cowardice is a bipartisan issue.
I did truly misunderstand you. I agree. Partisan bickering is pretty common in the OT board, so sometime I see it when it really isn't there.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
I'm odd that way, my enemy is Congress which has been disfunctional for years. They only seem to pass a budget every other year and never on time, and they haven't for what, 3, 4 years?
If I ran my life the way they run the country I'd be dead or in jail.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
Term limits for all congress people? After a certain point, you just don't get a say anymore.
Also, somewhere in the last page the quotes got seriously messed up. I never said "keep the blame where it belongs."
5534
Post by: dogma
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Term limits for all congress people?
Term limits probably won't help. Ultimately they serve to increase the influence of parties by limiting the ability of individual legislators to learn how to maneuver inside a legislative body, forcing them to rely on advice provided by partisan organizations. There are nonpartisan organizations that provide similar functions, but as someone who works for one I can tell you that they tend to be more expensive, and therefore less attractive to legislators without the kind of long term exposure necessary for major fundraising.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
I'm talking about 8-12 year term limits. I think that's long enough that you would have a pretty good idea of what you were doing before you passed the reins as it were.
53059
Post by: dæl
We Brits are kind of lucky in this regard, our civil service stays regardless of who's in power, so there's no 'learning the ropes' transition between governments. Although our most recent budget is apparently an amalgamation of ideas that have been floating around the treasury for years.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I'm talking about 8-12 year term limits. I think that's long enough that you would have a pretty good idea of what you were doing before you passed the reins as it were.
End Gerrymandering districts and 'safe seats' that give Congress it's 95% re-election rate. Congressional districts must follow county lines. If one county has enough people to justify more than one rep, they're elected at-large.
Term limits.
More involved voters, especially at the primary level. (I know... I know...)
'Blind' elections where Candidates' party affiliations are not listed.
Once the fiscal year ends Congress may not leave the capital building until they pass one (based on how the Cardinals elect a Pope).
Not sure how to balance the whole lobbyist/access/money issue. But those steps would be a start.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I'm talking about 8-12 year term limits. I think that's long enough that you would have a pretty good idea of what you were doing before you passed the reins as it were.
End Gerrymandering districts and 'safe seats' that give Congress it's 95% re-election rate. Congressional districts must follow county lines. If one county has enough people to justify more than one rep, they're elected at-large.
Term limits.
More involved voters, especially at the primary level. (I know... I know...)
'Blind' elections where Candidates' party affiliations are not listed.
Once the fiscal year ends Congress may not leave the capital building until they pass one (based on how the Cardinals elect a Pope).
Not sure how to balance the whole lobbyist/access/money issue. But those steps would be a start.
I'll counter with this - Allow any of their constituents who can get 500 signatures (of other constituents) to challenge the congressperson to armed combat to either first blood or death. Give the congressperson choice of weapons. Then drown the lobbyists. In fire.
5534
Post by: dogma
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I'm talking about 8-12 year term limits. I think that's long enough that you would have a pretty good idea of what you were doing before you passed the reins as it were.
It depends on how its set up. Several states already have term limits in their state legislatures, ranging from 8 year lifetime limits across both houses to 12 year consecutive limits in each house. In every case, though, you end up with a legislature that's more chaotic due to the absence of well defined procedural norms and strong leadership. You also see, as I said before, stronger political parties, excepting states in which one party has been historically dominant (this is most obvious in OK). If you want a really, really good example of term limits gone wrong, look at California, their legislature is an utter mess.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
End Gerrymandering districts and 'safe seats' that give Congress it's 95% re-election rate. Congressional districts must follow county lines. If one county has enough people to justify more than one rep, they're elected at-large.
Term limits.
More involved voters, especially at the primary level. (I know... I know...)
'Blind' elections where Candidates' party affiliations are not listed.
Once the fiscal year ends Congress may not leave the capital building until they pass one (based on how the Cardinals elect a Pope).
I agree with the bold, but I'm not sure the budget measure would work especially well.
91
Post by: Hordini
Looking back, I want to note that in some posts I was using the term "prisoner of war" rather loosely. I briefly considered not using the term, but I wasn't sure if it might be confusing for Dakkaites not familiar with the different classifications used in the Geneva Convention and the US. Polonius is right that many, if not all, of the prisoners in Guantanamo do not technically have prisoner of war status, even if they were detained as enemy combatants.
The difficulty of classifying prisoners who were detained as non-uniformed fighters and insurgents is where the Geneva Convention starts to show its age, and is certainly an issue with Guantanamo and the prisoners being held there, since many insurgents in the current conflicts sort of blur the lines of the different categories used in the Geneva Convention. That said, I still don't think charging every one in Guantanamo with a crime and putting them on trial is the best way to deal with the issue, because even if many or all of them don't have technical prisoner of war status under the Geneva Convention, that's still basically what many of them are.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Polonius wrote:Neither domestic criminal law nor international war crimes law really cover insurgents.
My co-workers and I used to have this argument all the time, and this is what it ultimately boils down to. We need to come up with some sort of international legal framework for dealing with insurgents (and by that, I don't mean building a facility that's intentionally designed to be "in legal outer space" - that's not really an adult way to handle things).
I think the continued existence of Guantanamo bay is possibly the biggest American failing in recent history in my mind. Setting up a place where there is no judicial oversight, where people are held indefinitely with no charge, I feel these are betrayals of who we are as Americans, as well as our most cherished belief in the rule of law.
I'd prefer the 9/11 planners be put on trial and be sentence to life in supermax - no death penalties, no matrydom, just a cell with rapists, murderers, and the other common criminals.
AustonT wrote:To my knowledge the constitution does not grant rights to the citizens of other countries.
The suspension clause does not indicate it applies to citizens only, so RAW they have it. This was FAQ'd by by the Supreme Court in Boumediene_v._Bush.
But now we're way OT.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
AustonT wrote:LoneLictor wrote:Frazzled wrote:Awesome.
What a thoughtful and indepth response.
It's a shame that both Mitt "The Gimp" Romney and Barack "The Failure" Obama still support gitmo. That gak is the most fething unconsitutional thing imaginable. People are whisked away without trials and kept in jail indefinitely, with no contact with their friends and family.
I made your post bipartisan. You are welcome.
To my knowledge the constitution does not grant rights to the citizens of other countries.
Sure it does, it grants rights uniformly to all people (in its current incarnation) on American soil.
4402
Post by: CptJake
A couple minor points.
1. A few folks have stated you capture people to 'keep them off the battlefield'. Well disregarding the fact that 'the battlefield' in this case is hard to define, that is A reason, but not close to the only reason. I can't think of a war I've read about where patrols were not sent out to capture a enemy soldiers in order to get intelligence on enemy disposition and intention.
2. Someone mentioned that one difference in GITMO was that it removed detainees from theater. I submit that is NOT different. The US had plenty of German prisoners in camps in the US during WW2.
There are a lot of myths being passed as facts in this thread in regards to how detainees are treated in GITMO.
91
Post by: Hordini
CptJake wrote:A couple minor points.
1. A few folks have stated you capture people to 'keep them off the battlefield'. Well disregarding the fact that 'the battlefield' in this case is hard to define, that is A reason, but not close to the only reason. I can't think of a war I've read about where patrols were not sent out to capture a enemy soldiers in order to get intelligence on enemy disposition and intention.
Perhaps I should clarify. I didn't mean that the sole purpose of capturing enemies is to keep them off the battlefield. You are correct that getting information from prisoners is a big part of it. What I meant was, after capturing them, you lock them up and hold them, rather than releasing them, to keep them off the battlefield. It's not the only reason or sole motive for capture, but is one of the reasons why they're not simply released after interrogation.
I also realize that the battlefield is hard to define, but I wasn't referring to it just in a physical sense. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to keep them from fighting against US or coalition forces, to keep them from waging war, or to keep them from planning or performing terrorist acts.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
LoneLictor wrote:Linky
I guess Bush can't go on vacation to Malaysia or any countries that extradite there (assuming any countries extradite there). Considering the crimes that Bush was convicted of, Obama could probably be convicted too. He's still running gitmo. But yeah, this news probably won't affect Bush much.
The US have committed several war crimes since at least WW2 and nothing was done about it, no reason to change that practice now.
4402
Post by: CptJake
PhantomViper wrote:
The US have committed several war crimes since at least WW2 and nothing was done about it, no reason to change that practice now.
Ignorance or trolling? Take a look at how many US troops have been investigated and prosecuted over the last 10 years for various ROE violations. You may not like the outcome, or you may wish to see political figures indicted, but your claim that 'nothing was done about it' is at best an asinine statement.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
CptJake wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
The US have committed several war crimes since at least WW2 and nothing was done about it, no reason to change that practice now.
Ignorance or trolling?
Take a look at how many US troops have been investigated and prosecuted over the last 10 years for various ROE violations. You may not like the outcome, or you may wish to see political figures indicted, but your claim that 'nothing was done about it' is at best an asinine statement.
At Haya?
I'm not talking about your internal justice system, I'm talking about the international war crimes tribunal.
Your country has committed several acts during and after WW2 that could easily be called war crimes or even crimes against humanity, but since you were on the victors side in WW2 and are a superpower since then, you've never even been indicted for them.
This isn't a judgement or anything by the way, its just the way that the world works! Both the USSR and China have committed similarly criminal actions and have "enjoyed" the same lack of consequences. Human rights and all that crap always takes a backseat when the interests of powerful nations is at stake.
4402
Post by: CptJake
PhantomViper wrote:CptJake wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
The US have committed several war crimes since at least WW2 and nothing was done about it, no reason to change that practice now.
Ignorance or trolling?
Take a look at how many US troops have been investigated and prosecuted over the last 10 years for various ROE violations. You may not like the outcome, or you may wish to see political figures indicted, but your claim that 'nothing was done about it' is at best an asinine statement.
At Haya?
I'm not talking about your internal justice system, I'm talking about the international war crimes tribunal.
Your country has committed several acts during and after WW2 that could easily be called war crimes or even crimes against humanity, but since you were on the victors side in WW2 and are a superpower since then, you've never even been indicted for them.
This isn't a judgement or anything by the way, its just the way that the world works! Both the USSR and China have committed similarly criminal actions and have "enjoyed" the same lack of consequences. Human rights and all that crap always takes a backseat when the interests of powerful nations is at stake.
Last time I checked the US was not a member of the International Criminal Court. And for good reasons.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
CptJake wrote:
Last time I checked the US was not a member of the International Criminal Court. And for good reasons.
Your point being? That you are not a member because if you were you could theoretically be prosecuted with all the crimes you guys commit?
Nah, you can continue to rape and pillage all you wan't, no one really gives a damn...
34906
Post by: Pacific
dæl wrote:They should do the same to Blair, i'd happily drive him to the airport.
Definitely agree with that, although I would prefer that he travelled by catapault 
221
Post by: Frazzled
PhantomViper wrote:CptJake wrote:
Last time I checked the US was not a member of the International Criminal Court. And for good reasons.
Your point being? That you are not a member because if you were you could theoretically be prosecuted with all the crimes you guys commit?
Nah, you can continue to rape and pillage all you wan't, no one really gives a damn...
The US doesn't recognize the jurisidiction of foreign courts in that manner. Plus if you tried to grab a President I'm pretty sure US marines would be eating crappy MRE's inside whats left of the Hague shortly thereafter. We're just protecting you from yourselves 
11038
Post by: G. Whitenbeard
Polonius wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:So if they are not PoWs they must be found guilty of a crime to be incarcerated and so must stand trial.
Based on what law?
Traditionally, non-uniformed forces, be they commandos, partisans, insurgents, or whatever have enjoyed zero legal protection.
If you fire on soldiers when you aren't a soldier, your life is forfeit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:So because they don't fit certain criteria they are fair game?
Under international law, yeah.
The United States Supreme Court begs to differ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush - Federal judiciary has right to hear wrongful imprisonment cases from GTMO detainees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld - UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions (as incorporated in the UCMJ) apply to GTMO detainees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush - GTMO detainees have right to habeas corpus
5534
Post by: dogma
Hordini wrote:Looking back, I want to note that in some posts I was using the term "prisoner of war" rather loosely. I briefly considered not using the term, but I wasn't sure if it might be confusing for Dakkaites not familiar with the different classifications used in the Geneva Convention and the US. Polonius is right that many, if not all, of the prisoners in Guantanamo do not technically have prisoner of war status, even if they were detained as enemy combatants.
The difficulty of classifying prisoners who were detained as non-uniformed fighters and insurgents is where the Geneva Convention starts to show its age, and is certainly an issue with Guantanamo and the prisoners being held there, since many insurgents in the current conflicts sort of blur the lines of the different categories used in the Geneva Convention. That said, I still don't think charging every one in Guantanamo with a crime and putting them on trial is the best way to deal with the issue, because even if many or all of them don't have technical prisoner of war status under the Geneva Convention, that's still basically what many of them are.
The best solution would be to push for a fifth GC, but that won't happen until the US really starts seeing its international influence decline. Right now we're going to sit pretty on the pedestal of "We have the most guns." Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:
I'd prefer the 9/11 planners be put on trial and be sentence to life in supermax - no death penalties, no matrydom, just a cell with rapists, murderers, and the other common criminals.
It worked well against the IRA.
47505
Post by: IcyCool
Frazzled wrote:The US doesn't recognize the jurisidiction of foreign courts in that manner. Plus if you tried to grab a President I'm pretty sure US marines would be eating crappy MRE's inside whats left of the Hague shortly thereafter. We're just protecting you from yourselves
This. I'm not a fan of G.W. Bush, but I'm of like opinion with John Wayne when it comes to Presidents.
"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."
But at any rate, when it comes to the U.S. and its citizens, we only recognize our own authority. Essentially, unless the Prez is tried and convicted by a U.S. Court, your little country and whatever mickey mouse ruling it came up with can go feth itself.
221
Post by: Frazzled
What he said!
47505
Post by: IcyCool
Frazzled wrote:What he said!
Frankly, I'm kind of surprised we don't do conquest. Screw nation building, just take their country and make it U.S. territory.
5534
Post by: dogma
IcyCool wrote: Essentially, unless the Prez is tried and convicted by a U.S. Court, your little country and whatever mickey mouse ruling it came up with can go feth itself.
I really, really can't wait until the US is forced to confront being not a superpower.
4402
Post by: CptJake
PhantomViper wrote:CptJake wrote:
Last time I checked the US was not a member of the International Criminal Court. And for good reasons.
Your point being? That you are not a member because if you were you could theoretically be prosecuted with all the crimes you guys commit?
Nah, you can continue to rape and pillage all you wan't, no one really gives a damn...
Point being that to give up sovereignty to an institution that feths up the trial of an actual war criminal like Ratko Mladic, has crap rules for evidence, and would allow 'Bush is a War Criminal' type trials is an asinine concept.
Again, I point out that the US has investigated and prosecuted our own troops within an existing system that is one of the better on the planet. You don't have to like the results. and I freely admit the system isn't perfect, but at least it isn't the political circus that the Hague ends up being.
5534
Post by: dogma
CptJake wrote:
Point being that to give up sovereignty to an institution that feths up the trial of an actual war criminal like Ratko Mladic, has crap rules for evidence, and would allow 'Bush is a War Criminal' type trials is an asinine concept.
You are very familiar with asinine things, so we should definitely trust your judgment.
CptJake wrote:
...but at least it isn't the political circus that the Hague ends up being.
Why is that not a good thing?
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:IcyCool wrote: Essentially, unless the Prez is tried and convicted by a U.S. Court, your little country and whatever mickey mouse ruling it came up with can go feth itself.
I really, really can't wait until the US is forced to confront being not a superpower.
Not much. We will still tell whatever little country with its mickey mouse ruling to go feth itself. North Korea and Iran do that just fine.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Not much. We will still tell whatever little country with its mickey mouse ruling to go feth itself.
Sure we will, doesn't mean anyone else will care.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Not much. We will still tell whatever little country with its mickey mouse ruling to go feth itself.
Sure we will, doesn't mean anyone else will care.
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
De facto diplomatic bans have away of cramping the trading style.
Note Britain vis a vis Libya.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
De facto diplomatic bans have away of cramping the trading style.
Note Britain vis a vis Libya.
Britain doesn't export to Libya? Ok. So?
53059
Post by: dæl
Frazzled wrote:dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
De facto diplomatic bans have away of cramping the trading style.
Note Britain vis a vis Libya.
Britain doesn't export to Libya? Ok. So?
We do, we recently exported the expertise to formulate a coup against a despotic regime. Before that we exported arms to prop up a despotic regime.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dæl wrote:Frazzled wrote:dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
De facto diplomatic bans have away of cramping the trading style.
Note Britain vis a vis Libya.
Britain doesn't export to Libya? Ok. So?
We do, we recently exported the expertise to formulate a coup against a despotic regime. Before that we exported arms to prop up a despotic regime.
SOunds like a positive balance of payments plan to me.  Why did you guys wack a good customer like that?
53059
Post by: dæl
Frazzled wrote:dæl wrote:Frazzled wrote:dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
De facto diplomatic bans have away of cramping the trading style.
Note Britain vis a vis Libya.
Britain doesn't export to Libya? Ok. So?
We do, we recently exported the expertise to formulate a coup against a despotic regime. Before that we exported arms to prop up a despotic regime.
SOunds like a positive balance of payments plan to me. Why did you guys wack a good customer like that?
Possibly had something to do with him wanting to return his economy to the gold standard, having zero sovereign debt, and not needing any infrastructure. Now they need all that stuff rebuilt, who cares that their 99% literacy rate might drop a bit for a few years or that the flag of al qaeda flies from their masts these days, we can make some cash.
And of course he murdered thousands of civilians. We tend to look on that sort of thing badly. Just not cricket using helicopters on the populous.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Britain doesn't export to Libya? Ok. So?
Well, they do, but the real issue stems from imports.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
Still waiting for Malaysia to do something about its best buddy and close ally Indonesia, whose government has done things that makes Bush look like a kitten.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Harriticus wrote:Still waiting for Malaysia to do something about its best buddy and close ally Indonesia, whose government has done things that makes Bush look like a kitten.
One time a kitten jumped on the back of my head and bite and clawed me at the same time. It was hardcore man. My scalp was covered in blood. Now days, on the very top of my head, is a very scarred up bald spot. Every time when I look in the mirror I'm reminded of the horrible thing that the kitten did to me.
Essentially what I'm saying is, looking like a kitten can still be a bad thing.
But I actually agree with what you're saying. So don't think I'm disagreeing with you. Because I'm not.
47505
Post by: IcyCool
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Not much. We will still tell whatever little country with its mickey mouse ruling to go feth itself.
Sure we will, doesn't mean anyone else will care.
Be fair dogma, nobody really cares now.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Frazzled wrote:dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Not much. We will still tell whatever little country with its mickey mouse ruling to go feth itself.
Sure we will, doesn't mean anyone else will care.
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
China could stop exporting those little bits of plastic which make the big machines work to your country.
5534
Post by: dogma
No, they really can't. Not without unacceptable consequences.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
dogma wrote:No, they really can't. Not without unacceptable consequences.
Yeah. Think of China has a hotdog stand and think of America as the fat guy who eats there for seventeen meals a day. Though China is certainly more powerful in their relationship, he is oddly dependent on America for the vast majority of his revenue.
53059
Post by: dæl
Also how would China get their monies owed back
The largest foreign holder of U.S. debt is China, which owns more about $1.2 trillion in bills, notes and bonds, according to the Treasury
221
Post by: Frazzled
A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Not much. We will still tell whatever little country with its mickey mouse ruling to go feth itself.
Sure we will, doesn't mean anyone else will care.
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
China could stop exporting those little bits of plastic which make the big machines work to your country.
Oh Noes! Then we would have to make all our own little bits of plastic and employ millions to do so. Oh Noes!
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Frazzled wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Not much. We will still tell whatever little country with its mickey mouse ruling to go feth itself.
Sure we will, doesn't mean anyone else will care.
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
China could stop exporting those little bits of plastic which make the big machines work to your country.
Oh Noes! Then we would have to make all our own little bits of plastic and employ millions to do so. Oh Noes!
And have to pay the workers the US minimum wage?! Won't somebody please think of the profits?! Those poor profits....
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Oh Noes! Then we would have to make all our own little bits of plastic and employ millions to do so. Oh Noes!
And pay 5 times as much for them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Not much. We will still tell whatever little country with its mickey mouse ruling to go feth itself.
Sure we will, doesn't mean anyone else will care.
As no "anyone else" will be able to do anything about it, so what?
China could stop exporting those little bits of plastic which make the big machines work to your country.
Oh Noes! Then we would have to make all our own little bits of plastic and employ millions to do so. Oh Noes!
And have to pay the workers the US minimum wage?! Won't somebody please think of the profits?! Those poor profits....
No no, thats why we have an open border. Who needs minimum wage-piffle!
39004
Post by: biccat
Frazzled wrote:Oh Noes! Then we would have to make all our own little bits of plastic and employ millions to do so. Oh Noes!
I suspect we'd start making those little bits of plastic in India and Africa. Possibly Eastern Europe.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
CptJake wrote:Point being that to give up sovereignty to an institution that feths up the trial of an actual war criminal like Ratko Mladic, has crap rules for evidence, and would allow 'Bush is a War Criminal' type trials is an asinine concept.
Again, I point out that the US has investigated and prosecuted our own troops within an existing system that is one of the better on the planet. You don't have to like the results. and I freely admit the system isn't perfect, but at least it isn't the political circus that the Hague ends up being.
Apart from the fact that Bush IS a war criminal, I agree with you on everything else, the Haya Tribunal is just another example of how deep we western societies have sunk into the molasse of PC crap...
Humans are the worst kind of animals and war is messy, innocents die, sometimes by accident, other times on purpose. To claim that some countries are above and have the right to judge other nations based solely on this, is both ridiculous and a lie.
The winners make the rules, the losers die / get sent to jail / whatever, don't try and make up appearances by instituting an International Crimes Tribunal that only trials cases depending on their political merits!
4402
Post by: CptJake
You've already declared Pres Bush a war criminal. See, don't even need a trial or court, all we need are folks like you to take the initiative. feth evidence, or process, we have PhantomViper and a slew of other internet detective/prosecutor/judge/jurors.
53059
Post by: dæl
Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
91
Post by: Hordini
dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
I'm not going to address your other claims with this post, but I'd like to note that the vast majority of civilian casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan have not been caused by US or coalition forces, but rather insurgents, terrorists, and sectarian militias.
39004
Post by: biccat
dæl wrote:without UN mandate
Leaving the rest aside, the UN has no authority over the United States. Their opinion is irrelevant.
4402
Post by: CptJake
dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
Your number of dead civilians is a complete joke unless you are including civilians killed by insurgents (in which case your attributing the crime to the wrong side).
The rest is a joke as welll. Automatically Appended Next Post: But, like I said....
CptJake wrote: You've already declared Pres Bush a war criminal. See, don't even need a trial or court, all we need are folks like you to take the initiative. feth evidence, or process, we have PhantomViper and a slew of other internet detective/prosecutor/judge/jurors.
53059
Post by: dæl
Hordini wrote:dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
I'm not going to address your other claims with this post, but I'd like to note that the vast majority of civilian casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan have not been caused by US or coalition forces, but rather insurgents, terrorists, and sectarian militias.
The IBC project released a report detailing the deaths it recorded between March 2003 and March 2005[71] in which it recorded 24,865 civilian deaths. The report says the U.S. and its allies were responsible for the largest share (37%) of the 24,865 deaths. The remaining deaths were attributed to anti-occupations forces (9%), crime (36%) and unknown agents (11%). It also lists the primary sources used by the media — mortuaries, medics, Iraqi officials, eyewitnesses, police, relatives, U.S.-coalition, journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), friends/associates and other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
biccat wrote:Leaving the rest aside, the UN has no authority over the United States. Their opinion is irrelevant.
But Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria must follow their resolutions? It's funny how Israel doesn't bother either. Roosevelt would be turning in his grave if he could see how toothless the organisation he created to keep the peace had become. Their opinion isn't irrelevant, their role is to protect peace, impose sanctions and authorise military action.
39004
Post by: biccat
dæl wrote:But Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria must follow their resolutions? It's funny how Israel doesn't bother either.
Yup. Authority is the ability to make people do what you want them to do when they don't want to do it. Whoever isn't on the side of the United States doesn't have the military might to back up their opinions. No authority means your opinion is just that, an opinion.
53059
Post by: dæl
CptJake wrote:dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
Your number of dead civilians is a complete joke unless you are including civilians killed by insurgents (in which case your attributing the crime to the wrong side).
The rest is a joke as welll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, like I said....
CptJake wrote: You've already declared Pres Bush a war criminal. See, don't even need a trial or court, all we need are folks like you to take the initiative. feth evidence, or process, we have PhantomViper and a slew of other internet detective/prosecutor/judge/jurors.
Falsified evidence - testemony of a taxi driver, then "sexed up"
UN mandate - where was that then?
100,000 - conservative by some estimates which claim upwards of 150,000. I picked 100,000 because it will be at least that, maybe not all had the trigger pulled by a coalition soldier, but there is direct responsibility from Bush and Blair.
Gitmo was dicussed the other day, and its ambiguous regarding legality, but certainly not morality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:dæl wrote:But Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria must follow their resolutions? It's funny how Israel doesn't bother either.
Yup. Bullying is the ability to make people do what you want them to do when they don't want to do it. Under threat of violence
Whoever isn't on the side of the United States doesn't have the military might to back up their opinions. No authority means your opinion is just that, an opinion.
How would Roosevelt feel about this?
221
Post by: Frazzled
PhantomViper wrote:Humans are the worst kind of animals
Incorrect. I'd proffer mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas are the worst kind of animals. No redeeming values at all. Automatically Appended Next Post: dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
-Evidence that everyone including your fair country both submitted and believed. Why do you hate your own country so? -The US doesn't recognize the soveriegnty of the UN over the US. Occasionally we'll permit a treaty but thats it. -You mean captures enemy combatants? You betcha. Again this is not something exactly new to GB. Under your standard Queen ELizabeth is a war criminal too. Don't think so! Why do you hate the Queenie you meenie!
29110
Post by: AustonT
dæl wrote:
The IBC project released a report detailing the deaths it recorded between March 2003 and March 2005[71] in which it recorded 24,865 civilian deaths. The report says the U.S. and its allies were responsible for the largest share (37%) of the 24,865 deaths. The remaining deaths were attributed to anti-occupations forces (9%), crime (36%) and unknown agents (11%). It also lists the primary sources used by the media — mortuaries, medics, Iraqi officials, eyewitnesses, police, relatives, U.S.-coalition, journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), friends/associates and other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
37+9+36+11=93
dæl wrote:
Yup. Bullying is the ability to make people do what you want them to do when they don't want to do it. Under threat of violence
Whoever isn't on the side of the United States doesn't have the military might to back up their opinions. No authority means your opinion is just that, an opinion.
Authority
The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience
Bullying
Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
You say six ; I say half dozen.
53059
Post by: dæl
Frazzled wrote:
this is not something exectly new to GB. Under your standard Queen ELizabeth is a war criminal too. Don't think so!
Liz? no not really. She signed off on Blair's war, but was misled, and had no other place in policy making. Now Vicky, absolutely, masses of genocide done in her name, with her blessing. As I mentioned earlier the concentration camp was invented during her reign.
As for Gitmo, its wrong on one of these or the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
But then why would that bother anyone willing to use white phosphorous.
39004
Post by: biccat
dæl wrote:biccat wrote:dæl wrote:But Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria must follow their resolutions? It's funny how Israel doesn't bother either.
Yup. Bullying is the ability to make people do what you want them to do when they don't want to do it. Under threat of violence
Whoever isn't on the side of the United States doesn't have the military might to back up their opinions. No authority means your opinion is just that, an opinion.
How would Roosevelt feel about this?
Like AustonT, I don't see any distinction between bullying and authority.
Who cares about Roosevelt?
221
Post by: Frazzled
biccat wrote:dæl wrote:biccat wrote:dæl wrote:But Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria must follow their resolutions? It's funny how Israel doesn't bother either.
Yup. Bullying is the ability to make people do what you want them to do when they don't want to do it. Under threat of violence
Whoever isn't on the side of the United States doesn't have the military might to back up their opinions. No authority means your opinion is just that, an opinion.
How would Roosevelt feel about this?
Like AustonT, I don't see any distinction between bullying and authority.
Who cares about Roosevelt?
he'd be just fine with it. Roosevelt embargoed Japan from all oil products, thus setting in motion Pearl Harbor and that whole Singapore mess. he also inaugurated Lend Lease, and sent the US navy to go shoot up "pirates" sinking ships in the Atlantic, those pirates being German U boats.
He also ordered the opportunistic hit on Yammamoto but an Air Force (ok Air Corps at the time) squadron and had thousands of US citizens of Japanese, Germans, and Italian Americans interned in the states.
I'd so yea he'd be just fine with it. Automatically Appended Next Post: dæl wrote:Frazzled wrote:
this is not something exectly new to GB. Under your standard Queen ELizabeth is a war criminal too. Don't think so!
Liz? no not really. She signed off on Blair's war, but was misled .
Ah see, she's using the Bush defense. Evidently that means nothing. off with her head! I'd suggest the White Tower for old times sake.
39004
Post by: biccat
Frazzled wrote:Ah see, she's using the Bush defense. Evidently that means nothing. off with her head! I'd suggest the White Tower for old times sake.
I'll bet you say that about all the royalty.
221
Post by: Frazzled
biccat wrote:Frazzled wrote:Ah see, she's using the Bush defense. Evidently that means nothing. off with her head! I'd suggest the White Tower for old times sake.
I'll bet you say that about all the royalty.
Now that you mention it...
53059
Post by: dæl
My allusion to Roosevelt is a reference to him setting up the UN in the first place. @AustonT, fair enough on the maths can't argue with dodgy figures, I doubt we will know for quite some time the exact figures. We didn't have figures for WW2 until 1970, so give it a few years.
As for the difference between authority and bullying, one is forcing people to act appropriately for the benefit of everyone, the other is pure self interest that breeds resentment.
As I said before. Is America more or less safe based on the actions of the past decade?
Britain is far less safe.
I'm all for becoming a republic, but tbf to her, she was lied to.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Roosevelt didn't set up the UN. He was pushing up daisies long before then.
No successful attacks so far. Bin Laden is dead, many Al Qaeda killed.
Whats interesting is that much of the reports about WMD's came from Britain...
30287
Post by: Bromsy
dæl wrote:My allusion to Roosevelt is a reference to him setting up the UN in the first place. @AustonT, fair enough on the maths can't argue with dodgy figures, I doubt we will know for quite some time the exact figures. We didn't have figures for WW2 until 1970, so give it a few years.
As for the difference between authority and bullying, one is forcing people to act appropriately for the benefit of everyone, the other is pure self interest that breeds resentment.
As I said before. Is America more or less safe based on the actions of the past decade?
Britain is far less safe.
I'm all for becoming a republic, but tbf to her, she was lied to.
I'd say more safe honestly. We've built our intelligence agencies back up after what clinton did to them. We have better networks with other countries in that field. Plus we killed the hell out of a lot of muj.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.
I do hear some horror stories about other airports. But rest assured, at MSP at the very least, we handle balls with skill and aplomb.
53059
Post by: dæl
Frazzled wrote:
Whats interesting is that much of the reports about WMD's came from Britain...
Yep, it was predominantly Blair and Alister Campbell who cooked them books. Highly recommend the film "In The Loop", its a great satire on the build up to the invasion.
It was Roosevelt's ideal of what needed to exist, he used the term years before the body actually existed, I think during WW2.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.
So you prefer to fondle but not be fondled?
I'm confused...
29110
Post by: AustonT
What can I say. I'm a giver.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.
If we cut up this statement... it becomes EXTRA funny
221
Post by: Frazzled
AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.
Agreed they are worthless. I hate the incompetence and theatrics of the TSA and absent business I'll never fly now. Even with business, I take great steps to avoid flying. NONE of the foiled recent attempts were because of the TSA. Of course now the TSA has seen fit to expand their penumbra to all manner of non flying things that I look forward to people challenging in court. Its becoming a sad mix of Gestapo and the Three Stooges. Automatically Appended Next Post: frgsinwntr wrote:AustonT wrote:Downside: the fething TSA. I'm debating driving to Montana this summer in my 3/4 ton truck rather than have my balls fondled by an inept government employee blatantly violating my constitutional rights.
Also applied to TSA. They have all the fun.
If we cut up this statement... it becomes EXTRA funny
You're good, you're real good. Creepy but good!
29110
Post by: AustonT
I feel like the density of government employees willing to fondle these walnuts is higher in Phoenix than Montana. You know from both a sexuality and government presense standpoint.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
The more dael posts... Ungh.. Your like my nemesis!
Anti war liberal guardian reader type..
A republican as well!?
We must have a duel before this week is out!
221
Post by: Frazzled
mattyrm wrote:The more dael posts... Ungh.. Your like my nemesis!
Anti war liberal guardian reader type..
A republican as well!?
We must have a duel before this week is out!
I suggest umbrellas whilst wearing proper King George whigs, in the middle of the London Bridge. At dawn of course.
29110
Post by: AustonT
mattyrm wrote:
A republican as well!?
What doest thou have against Republicans?!
Arm yourself sir!
53059
Post by: dæl
mattyrm wrote:The more dael posts... Ungh.. Your like my nemesis!
Anti war liberal guardian reader type..
A republican as well!?
We must have a duel before this week is out!
I prefer the indy, guardian is a little too lentils and sandals even for me. Although they do have Charlie Brooker as a writer.
And sir, I shall have satisfaction!
4402
Post by: CptJake
dæl wrote:CptJake wrote:dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
Your number of dead civilians is a complete joke unless you are including civilians killed by insurgents (in which case your attributing the crime to the wrong side).
The rest is a joke as welll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, like I said....
CptJake wrote: You've already declared Pres Bush a war criminal. See, don't even need a trial or court, all we need are folks like you to take the initiative. feth evidence, or process, we have PhantomViper and a slew of other internet detective/prosecutor/judge/jurors.
Falsified evidence - testemony of a taxi driver, then "sexed up"
UN mandate - where was that then?
100,000 - conservative by some estimates which claim upwards of 150,000. I picked 100,000 because it will be at least that, maybe not all had the trigger pulled by a coalition soldier, but there is direct responsibility from Bush and Blair.
Gitmo was dicussed the other day, and its ambiguous regarding legality, but certainly not morality.
Again, your casualty numbers are a complete joke.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
Use the filters for 'US-Led Coalition, no Iraqi State Forces'. FYI, this is NOT a pro-US military website either.
From that site:
Total deaths from coalition forces:
14,781 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly caused by the US-led coalition.
And the rest of your arguments are about as weak as this one...
21853
Post by: mattyrm
AustonT wrote:mattyrm wrote:
A republican as well!?
What doest thou have against Republicans?!
Arm yourself sir!
I meant British ones, not American ones.
Two nations divided by a common language eh?
I would have voted McCain over Obama if he didn't get a slow for a VP, so we went for an independent. I meant Republicans in Britain, as in, the horrible unwashed jealous peasants who loathe my glorious Queen and want to replace her with a fething president.. like we dont have enough lying politicians, lets get another one! 
Automatically Appended Next Post: dæl wrote:mattyrm wrote:The more dael posts... Ungh.. Your like my nemesis!
Anti war liberal guardian reader type..
A republican as well!?
We must have a duel before this week is out!
I prefer the indy, guardian is a little too lentils and sandals even for me. Although they do have Charlie Brooker as a writer.
And sir, I shall have satisfaction!
Haha.. well, im glad about the Guardian, but further proving my theory, I bloody hate Charlie Brooker as well!
53059
Post by: dæl
CptJake wrote:dæl wrote:
Falsified evidence - testemony of a taxi driver, then "sexed up"
UN mandate - where was that then?
100,000 - conservative by some estimates which claim upwards of 150,000. I picked 100,000 because it will be at least that, maybe not all had the trigger pulled by a coalition soldier, but there is direct responsibility from Bush and Blair.
Gitmo was dicussed the other day, and its ambiguous regarding legality, but certainly not morality.
Again, your casualty numbers are a complete joke.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
Use the filters for 'US-Led Coalition, no Iraqi State Forces'. FYI, this is NOT a pro-US military website either.
From that site:
Total deaths from coalition forces:
14,781 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly caused by the US-led coalition.
And the rest of your arguments are about as weak as this one...
If presented will irrefutable evidence I will change my view, comes from an education in the sciences. But as I said maybe not all had the trigger pulled by a coalition soldier, but there is direct responsibility from Bush and Blair. And real figures will not emerge for years.
My other arguments are pretty strong really, would you like to argue that the evidence used to support the invasion was true. Or that the invasion was done with a UN mandate. Or that guantanamo is ethically and morally acceptable, and that it contravenes neither the Third nor Forth Geneva Convention.
29110
Post by: AustonT
mattyrm wrote:AustonT wrote:mattyrm wrote:
A republican as well!?
What doest thou have against Republicans?!
Arm yourself sir!
I meant British ones, not American ones.
Two nations divided by a common language eh?
I would have voted McCain over Obama if he didn't get a slow for a VP, so we went for an independent. I meant Republicans in Britain, as in, the horrible unwashed jealous peasants who loathe my glorious Queen and want to replace her with a fething president.. like we dont have enough lying politicians, lets get another one!
It's not even that common. You ask me for a pack of fags and I'm liable to send you to the nearest homosexual establishment, or of I'm cultured enough I might actually try to sell you a bundle of sticks.
I was under the impression it was my turn to take a piss. I wanted to add something about God smiting you down but lets face it I don't have that kind of clout.
I am familiar with Rebublicans in Austrailia and the UK from the news...I'd imagine the Canucks have them too but I've never met one. I don't see the point really all that would do is piss off the royals. And don't they own significant properties and contribute the rent and proceeds to the national budget? Or did I imagine that?
21853
Post by: mattyrm
AustonT wrote:I don't see the point really all that would do is piss off the royals. And don't they own significant properties and contribute the rent and proceeds to the national budget? Or did I imagine that?
The crown paid £300 million in tax last year, money from their estates, tourism and such. I think they only cost about 40 million.
We pay about 1billion a year for the sneaky fething MPs though, and their sneaky toady kids. How many of them send their boys to Afghanistan?
Anyway, this will go OT if I rant about the monarchy and the Republicans rock up.. so lets leave it there.
As I said though, you and I seem similarly aligned politically, I'm certainly not anti Republican in US terms, I agree with them with regards to fiscal matters, wellfare and healthcare reform and such..I just cant stand that so many of them are crazy for the Jesus Juice.
53059
Post by: dæl
They don't contribute rent on property, their contributions stem from tourism. And they cost quite a lot when you factor in Royal weddings and Jubilees and silly minor Royals who have no real claim on the public purse. There are many arguments for and against, the predominant one for being that 99.99% of our politicians on both sides are chinless idiots who are just as "born to lead" as any royalty. Of course we had a war (which killed a larger proportion of the population than any other war) to decide this and republicans won, but our Lord Protector Cromwell decided to bring back the Royals, albeit with pretty much no power.
edit:didnt have the figures on it matty, cheers for that. btw, I'm all for liz seeing out her time, but charlie i just can't stand.
29110
Post by: AustonT
dæl wrote:They don't contribute rent on property, their contributions stem from tourism. And they cost quite a lot when you factor in Royal weddings and Jubilees and silly minor Royals who have no real claim on the public purse. There are many arguments for and against, the predominant one for being that 99.99% of our politicians on both sides are chinless idiots who are just as "born to lead" as any royalty. Of course we had a war (which killed a larger proportion of the population than any other war) to decide this and republicans won, but our Lord Protector Cromwell decided to bring back the Royals, albeit with pretty much no power.
edit:didnt have the figures on it matty, cheers for that. btw, I'm all for liz seeing out her time, but charlie i just can't stand.
I believe you meant "His Highness" Lord Protector Cromwell. Real republican guy that he was; picked his son not the royals to lead in non-republican and rather dynastic fashion. He was dead before the restoration of the monarchy, which was an act of an elected parliament.
I think you meant to say you had a civil war in which a particularly brutal religious dictator won a war and committed genocidal atrocities against tue Scots and Irish and attempted to set up his own family as a dynastic monarchy that was somewhat unpopular with the people.
53059
Post by: dæl
AustonT wrote:dæl wrote:They don't contribute rent on property, their contributions stem from tourism. And they cost quite a lot when you factor in Royal weddings and Jubilees and silly minor Royals who have no real claim on the public purse. There are many arguments for and against, the predominant one for being that 99.99% of our politicians on both sides are chinless idiots who are just as "born to lead" as any royalty. Of course we had a war (which killed a larger proportion of the population than any other war) to decide this and republicans won, but our Lord Protector Cromwell decided to bring back the Royals, albeit with pretty much no power.
edit:didnt have the figures on it matty, cheers for that. btw, I'm all for liz seeing out her time, but charlie i just can't stand.
I believe you meant "His Highness" Lord Protector Cromwell. Real republican guy that he was; picked his son not the royals to lead in non-republican and rather dynastic fashion. He was dead before the restoration of the monarchy, which was an act of an elected parliament.
I think you meant to say you had a civil war in which a particularly brutal religious dictator won a war and committed genocidal atrocities against tue Scots and Irish and attempted to set up his own family as a dynastic monarchy that was somewhat unpopular with the people.
Yep, that sounds about right. Theres a reason people say Guido Fawkes was the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions.
Back OT. Will there ever be a trial elsewhere do people think? Surely people will continue to ask for one until it happens, so even if its a sham trial that validates Bush's actions it would then silence critics.
5534
Post by: dogma
biccat wrote:
Leaving the rest aside, the UN has no authority over the United States. Their opinion is irrelevant.
No, their opinion is relevant. Much as the US opinion of global affairs is relevant. Whether or not some kind of legal authority exists is a secondary concern at best, and basically little more than tool for diplomatic and political maneuvering with regard to global public opinion.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
Judge, Jury, and executioner mentality I see. The NKVD would be proud.
This "trial" is just politically motivated BS. 10,000 Muslims in Syria have died in the last year and the Malaysia is mum about it and I guarantee you these kind of show-trials won't happen with Bashar al-Assad.
53059
Post by: dæl
Harriticus wrote:dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
Judge, Jury, and executioner mentality I see. The NKVD would be proud.
This "trial" is just politically motivated BS. 10,000 Muslims in Syria have died in the last year and the Malaysia is mum about it and I guarantee you these kind of show-trials won't happen with Bashar al-Assad.
There was me thinking the person who puts the case against was generally known as the prosecution.
Assad will be rightly tried in the Hague, whereas Mugabe? Oh, I forgot that Zimbabwe doesn't border Iran and is therefore of no tactical value.
4402
Post by: CptJake
dæl wrote:My other arguments are pretty strong really, would you like to argue that the evidence used to support the invasion was true. Or that the invasion was done with a UN mandate. Or that guantanamo is ethically and morally acceptable, and that it contravenes neither the Third nor Forth Geneva Convention.
Your other rguments are crap too.
You have no proof the intel used to go in was falsified. Many intel agencies across several countries thought it was good intel.
As for the UN, look up the Oil for Food scandal. There was NO WAY the UN was gonna dump their cash cow, and as has been pointed out, the UN does not decide when the US goes to war, and UN authorization is not what makes war legal.
The GITMO argument is silly as well. It is absolutey ethically and morally acceptable to detain illegal combatants, it would be morally wrong to not do so and allow them to continue thier activities. I seriously doubt any gov't would argue otherwise, though they may argue the definition of illegal combatants. In past wars these guys would have been capped vice detained. In fact, our current President has taken that road vice deal with capture and detention in many cases.
12313
Post by: Ouze
CptJake wrote: In past wars these guys would have been capped vice detained. In fact, our current President has taken that road vice deal with capture and detention in many cases.
In previous wars, they were legally detained because habeas corpus clearly has an exception for in cases of insurrection and invasion - Pearl Harbor would have adequately covered that. And, of course, those that were detained were prisoners of war and had legal status.
What is you opinion for how long we can detain "illegal combtanants"? You can't say until the end of hostilities, because our current 2 conflicts are undeclared wars and can never be ended, per se. So, 10 years? 20? 50? At what point do you think it's a bad idea for the United States to scoop up people who may or may not have done something, who may or may not even be the right people, and hold them forever without ever allowing them to challenge their detention, solely on the word of a single man, the POTUS. What, in your mind, is an acceptable timeline?
5534
Post by: dogma
CptJake wrote:
You have no proof the intel used to go in was falsified. Many intel agencies across several countries thought it was good intel.
There's actually quite a bit of evidence that the intelligence supporting the Iraq invasion was falsified, or liberally interpreted. You've even got Colin Powell calling the briefing he gave to the GA "deliberately misleading", and Bush calling the matter an intelligence failure.
53059
Post by: dæl
To claim the evidence was thought to be true is incredibly naive,
forged documents detailing proposed sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq,
I can confirm to you that we have received information from a number of member states regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Niger. However, we have learned nothing which would cause us to change the conclusion we reported to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003 with regards to the documents assessed to be forgeries and have not received any information that would appear to be based on anything other than those documents IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky
the september dossier claiming the imminent 45 minute chemical attack when Saddam's scuds barely reached Israel,
"Mr Gilligan accepted that he had made errors" about the 45 minute claim; specifically, his report that the government "probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable", and his report that intelligence officers were unhappy with the insertion of the claim in the dossier, or only inserted it at the insistence of the government, were erroneous.The Hutton Report
Information surfacing in late 2009 initially appeared to suggest that the source of the 45 minute claim was in fact a taxi driver "on the Iraqi-Jordanian border, who had remembered an overheard conversation in the back of his cab a full two years earlier"
the iraq dossier was made up to make the case for war, as was revealed to the Chilcot inquiry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/12/iraq-dossier-case-for-war
the suspicious and still inconclusive "suicide" of Dr David Kelly, and the attempts by Lord Hutton to keep the autopsy classified for 70 years, even now top physicians and pathologists assert that the officially stated cause of death was highly implausible.
The memo from Blair to Bush dated 31/1/03 detailing the beginning of bombing on 10/3/03, regardless of a second UN resolution.
The fact that a MI6 officer stated "toppling Saddam Hussein remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".
Now, UN mandate was required for Desert Storm, The Afghan Invasion, and the recent Libyan Conflict, but not Iraq? I read about the Oil-for-Food program, seems a corrupt system under the auspices of humanitarianism, much like what will be happening all over the world right now. The UN didn't refuse to make the resolution because they wanted a few extra dollars, they refused to make the resolution because the IAEA, weapons inspectors and middle eastern commentators knew the evidence was a pack of lies, and there were no WMDs.
If Gitmo was morally right it would either: a) Treat detainees as POWs under the Third Geneva Convention, and would not torture them. or b) Treat detainees as Civilian Persons under the Forth Geneva Convention and not torture them. To hide behind legalise and treat them as neither, to rendition whoever they choose, keep them for however long they wish, and torture them, is beyond immoral, it's abhorrent.
29110
Post by: AustonT
dæl wrote:Now, UN mandate was required for Desert Storm, The Afghan Invasion, and the recent Libyan Conflict, but not Iraq? I read about the Oil-for-Food program, seems a corrupt system under the auspices of humanitarianism, much like what will be happening all over the world right now. The UN didn't refuse to make the resolution because they wanted a few extra dollars, they refused to make the resolution because the IAEA, weapons inspectors and middle eastern commentators knew the evidence was a pack of lies, and there were no WMDs.
No not required just received.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
AustonT wrote:dæl wrote:Now, UN mandate was required for Desert Storm, The Afghan Invasion, and the recent Libyan Conflict, but not Iraq? I read about the Oil-for-Food program, seems a corrupt system under the auspices of humanitarianism, much like what will be happening all over the world right now. The UN didn't refuse to make the resolution because they wanted a few extra dollars, they refused to make the resolution because the IAEA, weapons inspectors and middle eastern commentators knew the evidence was a pack of lies, and there were no WMDs.
No not required just received.
Depends on whether you're looking at the requirements for a just war. And it depends on what your idea of a just war is.
53059
Post by: dæl
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the legality of a war based on UN resolutions. Do you see what I mean about the public being deliberately misled with falsified evidence in the run up to the invasion though?
P.S. cool eldar, new jetbike looks promising.
29110
Post by: AustonT
dæl wrote:I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the legality of a war based on UN resolutions. Do you see what I mean about the public being deliberately misled with falsified evidence in the run up to the invasion though?
P.S. cool eldar, new jetbike looks promising.
I'm ok with that. The legality of war is a foolish debate on both ends; in the end neither of us can unequivocally prove our point. Historically speaking the winners claim illegal warfare against the losers. Although a couple years ago a guy name Gaius got into an argument with a man named Cicero over the legality of his warfare. That was a doosey.
Ps. Thank you, the project has been shelved for awhile but I'm hoping to finish the army this summer. My workbench has remained literally untouched so I should've able to just pick up where I left off. Automatically Appended Next Post: Humbug the whole reason I started this response I forgot. UN General Assembly resolutions are worth the paper the are printed on. UNGARS are voted suggestions that are non-binding.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
CptJake wrote:dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
Your number of dead civilians is a complete joke unless you are including civilians killed by insurgents (in which case your attributing the crime to the wrong side).
The rest is a joke as welll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, like I said....
CptJake wrote: You've already declared Pres Bush a war criminal. See, don't even need a trial or court, all we need are folks like you to take the initiative. feth evidence, or process, we have PhantomViper and a slew of other internet detective/prosecutor/judge/jurors.
Just a thought but how many of those civilians would have been killed by insurgents if the US and UK did not invade Iraq?
37755
Post by: Harriticus
dæl wrote:Harriticus wrote:dæl wrote:Starts war on falsified evidence, without UN mandate, kills over 100,000 civilians, abducts and tortures people without due process. Seems like the evidence speaks for itself.
Is America safer from extremist terrorism now? Quite the opposite I would say.
Judge, Jury, and executioner mentality I see. The NKVD would be proud.
This "trial" is just politically motivated BS. 10,000 Muslims in Syria have died in the last year and the Malaysia is mum about it and I guarantee you these kind of show-trials won't happen with Bashar al-Assad.
There was me thinking the person who puts the case against was generally known as the prosecution.
Assad will be rightly tried in the Hague, whereas Mugabe? Oh, I forgot that Zimbabwe doesn't border Iran and is therefore of no tactical value.
Syria doesn't border Iran either. And Russia/China/far-leftists/Palestinian advocates globally are preventing any real justice against Assad. He will not be tried in the Hague. Assad, and Mugabe for that matter, are both quite popular amongst the same group of people who are having their own show-trial against Bush.
Anyway as to the above on Iraq, would have been a major upsurge in internal violence in Iraq as it is. The apartheid-esque system it operated where Sunni's were supreme over Shias/Kurds were unsustainable in the longrun. Saddam had already killed 300,000 or so people putting down uprisings in the late 80's/90's. In particular, I bet if Saddam were still in power by the Arab Spring things would have gotten very, very nasty in Iraq. Similar to what's going on in Syria right now, with the Sunni's, Kurds, and Druze rebelling against the Alawite apartheid government.
Not that I'm arguing that the sectarian violence caused by the 2003 war is okay because it would have eventually happened anyway. Yet on the same accord, to view Iraq as a melting pot free from violence before that is naive.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
Harriticus wrote:
Syria doesn't border Iran either. And Russia/China/far-leftists/Palestinian advocates globally are preventing any real justice against Assad. He will not be tried in the Hague. Assad, and Mugabe for that matter, are both quite popular amongst the same group of people who are having their own show-trial against Bush.
Malaysia is part of the same cohesive group as China? They seem to knock heads on a couple of subjects, especially in the case of sea territory. Granted no one likes China when it comes to that point.
53059
Post by: dæl
Harriticus wrote:
Syria doesn't border Iran either. And Russia/China/far-leftists/Palestinian advocates globally are preventing any real justice against Assad. He will not be tried in the Hague. Assad, and Mugabe for that matter, are both quite popular amongst the same group of people who are having their own show-trial against Bush.
Anyway as to the above on Iraq, would have been a major upsurge in internal violence in Iraq as it is. The apartheid-esque system it operated where Sunni's were supreme over Shias/Kurds were unsustainable in the longrun. Saddam had already killed 300,000 or so people putting down uprisings in the late 80's/90's. In particular, I bet if Saddam were still in power by the Arab Spring things would have gotten very, very nasty in Iraq. Similar to what's going on in Syria right now, with the Sunni's, Kurds, and Druze rebelling against the Alawite apartheid government.
Not that I'm arguing that the sectarian violence caused by the 2003 war is okay because it would have eventually happened anyway. Yet on the same accord, to view Iraq as a melting pot free from violence before that is naive.
Syria doesn't border Iran no, however they are one of Iran's last remaining supporters. And we all know the US's feelings on Iran, heres an image of military bases that border Iran. Seem totally peaceful in intent.
The situation was entirely unsustainable, however if we had waited for the Arab Spring, there would have, as with other places, been an viable opposition form. Unlike the untrusted puppet government that currently resides in Baghdad, they would not have needed us to hang around indefinitely to make sure things don't blow up in their faces. Civilians would have died under Saddam, but civilians are dying now in Syria, Zimbabwe, China and elsewhere, we don't do anything about that, and it wasn't the reason for invasion. I understand you would like to know how many would have died to reduce this from the overall total but thats impossible to ever know.
Lets compare Iraq with Syria shall we -
Life expectancy
Iraq - 58.2 Syria - 73.6
Infant Motality Rate
Iraq - 35 per 100 Syria - 15 per 100
Adult Literacy
Iraq - 74% Syria - 83%
% of pop living on less that $2 a day
Iraq - 25.31% Syria - 16.85%
Every thing we have done has been for the benefit of a few people and thousands have died on both sides, we have no exit strategy and never did have, and the rest of the world looks on disgust. Was it worth it? Are we safer from terrorism? if so only because we are more geared toward stopping it. Is oil cheaper? Not for the man on the street. Have we made Iraq a better place? In some ways yes, in many others no.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
George Bush like a majority of our leaders today are incompetant and care little for the working class. I hope he faces prison or charges.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
rockerbikie wrote:George Bush like a majority of our leaders today are incompetant and care little for the working class. I hope he faces prison or charges.
I don't see what makes that so wrong. The working class really only cares about itself.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the legality of a war based on UN resolutions.
The UN is a huge joke. I don't see why people take it seriously.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
Mr Hyena wrote:rockerbikie wrote:George Bush like a majority of our leaders today are incompetant and care little for the working class. I hope he faces prison or charges.
I don't see what makes that so wrong. The working class really only cares about itself.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the legality of a war based on UN resolutions.
The UN is a huge joke. I don't see why people take it seriously.
The working class is the back bone of the economy. To not care about them will lead the economy into disarray. To have such large class divisions is unacceptable.
4402
Post by: CptJake
dæl wrote:Harriticus wrote:
Syria doesn't border Iran either. And Russia/China/far-leftists/Palestinian advocates globally are preventing any real justice against Assad. He will not be tried in the Hague. Assad, and Mugabe for that matter, are both quite popular amongst the same group of people who are having their own show-trial against Bush.
Anyway as to the above on Iraq, would have been a major upsurge in internal violence in Iraq as it is. The apartheid-esque system it operated where Sunni's were supreme over Shias/Kurds were unsustainable in the longrun. Saddam had already killed 300,000 or so people putting down uprisings in the late 80's/90's. In particular, I bet if Saddam were still in power by the Arab Spring things would have gotten very, very nasty in Iraq. Similar to what's going on in Syria right now, with the Sunni's, Kurds, and Druze rebelling against the Alawite apartheid government.
Not that I'm arguing that the sectarian violence caused by the 2003 war is okay because it would have eventually happened anyway. Yet on the same accord, to view Iraq as a melting pot free from violence before that is naive.
Syria doesn't border Iran no, however they are one of Iran's last remaining supporters. And we all know the US's feelings on Iran, heres an image of military bases that border Iran. Seem totally peaceful in intent.
The situation was entirely unsustainable, however if we had waited for the Arab Spring, there would have, as with other places, been an viable opposition form. Unlike the untrusted puppet government that currently resides in Baghdad, they would not have needed us to hang around indefinitely to make sure things don't blow up in their faces. Civilians would have died under Saddam, but civilians are dying now in Syria, Zimbabwe, China and elsewhere, we don't do anything about that, and it wasn't the reason for invasion. I understand you would like to know how many would have died to reduce this from the overall total but thats impossible to ever know.
Lets compare Iraq with Syria shall we -
Life expectancy
Iraq - 58.2 Syria - 73.6
Infant Motality Rate
Iraq - 35 per 100 Syria - 15 per 100
Adult Literacy
Iraq - 74% Syria - 83%
% of pop living on less that $2 a day
Iraq - 25.31% Syria - 16.85%
Every thing we have done has been for the benefit of a few people and thousands have died on both sides, we have no exit strategy and never did have, and the rest of the world looks on disgust. Was it worth it? Are we safer from terrorism? if so only because we are more geared toward stopping it. Is oil cheaper? Not for the man on the street. Have we made Iraq a better place? In some ways yes, in many others no.
Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.
But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...
53059
Post by: dæl
CptJake wrote:
Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.
But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...
At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.
If you notice I have provided numerous facts and statistics to this thread, that post contains a comparison between a country under occupation, and a country under tyranny.
If you cannot distinguish between a few of the actions of a nation and the nation itself you have my sympathies, being anti-austerity does not mean you hate Germany. Or are unjust, financially motivated wars synonymous with America for you?
4402
Post by: CptJake
dæl wrote:CptJake wrote:
Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.
But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...
At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.
Then again, it is NOT accurate. Several of those shown are NOT US bases nor used by the US and in the case of the Saudi bases have not been for quite a while. Add in a few are specific logistic bases supporting ops in Astan (Manas for example but that is not the only one) and not actually near the Iranian border and again, your graphic is misleading. Scratch that, it is dishonest.
53059
Post by: dæl
CptJake wrote:dæl wrote:CptJake wrote:
Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.
But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...
At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.
Then again, it is NOT accurate. Several of those shown are NOT US bases nor used by the US and in the case of the Saudi bases have not been for quite a while. Add in a few are specific logistic bases supporting ops in Astan (Manas for example but that is not the only one) and not actually near the Iranian border and again, your graphic is misleading. Scratch that, it is dishonest.
Then provide one which is accurate, I chose the graphic I found, if you can provide one refuting it then please do, prove me wrong and I will agree with you, I'm no zealot, I make my opinions on what I see, if I see something that refutes that, my opinions change. I have no 'blind faith' that the war was wrong, everything I have seen and learnt and taking into account the arguments for and against I believe it was wrong.
5534
Post by: dogma
CptJake wrote:
But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...
You, of all people, probably don't want to harp on facts and accuracy.
rockerbikie wrote:George Bush like a majority of our leaders today are incompetant and care little for the working class. I hope he faces prison or charges.
Why should he care about the working class? There are tons of them, and they're all easy to replace.
29110
Post by: AustonT
dæl wrote:CptJake wrote:
Assuming you mean to include ALL bases you are missing a crap ton. Seeing as how your JPG is called US Bases, you may want to update it if you are intending to show actual bases used by the US. A lot. No US bases in Iraq or Saudi at this time for example.
But since facts and accuracy would not work for your anti US ranting, I guess you can stick with what you have...
At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.
If you notice I have provided numerous facts and statistics to this thread, that post contains a comparison between a country under occupation, and a country under tyranny.
Yes the graphic you posted is supposed to represent all US bases inside the picture, it is misrepresentation at it's highest. The graphic includes bases that have been closed for years bases closed as recently as the withdrawal from Iraq. It was posted January of this year on Business Insider and December on the Democratic Underground which makes it "current."
/failgraphic
53059
Post by: dæl
dæl wrote:
At no point did I claim it covered ALL US bases, simply those on the Iranian border.
Then provide one which is accurate
Which ones are closed? How many? Do you think Iran care that a couple are no longer active? Or do they care that most still are? And that they hacked a drone that was in their airspace?
5534
Post by: dogma
Here.
Not perfect, but better.
29110
Post by: AustonT
This one is perfect...
5534
Post by: dogma
He's not wearing a turban.
29110
Post by: AustonT
...I don't think I follow.
5534
Post by: dogma
Secret Muslim plotting to overthrow our Good Christian Nation. Probably by dropping bombs on other Muslims.
53059
Post by: dæl
dogma wrote:Here.
Not perfect, but better.
Thank you.
There still seems a disproportionate amount toward the East of Iraq, although those in Afghanistan are mainly toward the Pakistan border, for obvious reasons. There doesn't seem much difference between this and the previous map, Pakistan and Turkmenistan are missing, what else?
29110
Post by: AustonT
eh...you get crickets...but points for trying.
|
|
