Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Mister Bushice »

Why not move on to more international targets, say the geneva convention? Who cares what it might mean in the long run, or what repercussions it may have in the international community, as long as Bush gets to do things his way, right?

Condi is getting very good at Bushspeak, too. She makes a wonderful puppet.
Senate panel defies Bush on terror

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 47 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A rebellious Senate committee defied
President Bush on Thursday and approved terror-detainee legislation he has vowed to block, deepening Republican conflict over terrorism and national security in the middle of the election season.
ADVERTISEMENT

Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, normally a Bush supporter, pushed the measure through his Armed Services Committee by a 15-9 vote, with Warner and three other GOP lawmakers joining Democrats. The vote set the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor as early as next week.

In an embarrassment to the White House,
Colin Powell — Bush's first secretary of state — announced his opposition to his old boss' plan, saying it would hurt the country. Powell's successor, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, jumped to the president's defense in a letter of her own.

All this played out after Bush started his day by journeying to the Capitol to try nailing down support for his own version of the legislation — and by issuing a threat to the maverick Republicans.

"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House.

The president's measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting
CIA and other U.S. interrogators against prosecution for using methods that may violate the Geneva Conventions.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his letter.

Powell said Bush's bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, "would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Firing back, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Powell was "confused" about the White House plan. Later, Snow said he probably shouldn't have used that word.

"I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists, too," he said.

The administration also produced its own letter from Rice. She wrote that narrowing the standards for detainee treatment as Bush has proposed "would add meaningful definition and clarification to vague terms in the treaties."

In addition, CIA Director Michael Hayden wrote a letter to his employees saying he has asked Congress "to help define our responsibilities so that we and the
Department of Justice can judge the appropriateness of any procedures we would propose to use" while questioning terrorism suspects. He said Bush's bill did that.

In the committee vote, Warner was supported by GOP Sens. McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. Warner, McCain and Graham had been the most active senators opposing Bush's plan. The vote by the moderate Collins underscored that there might be broad enough GOP support to successfully take on Bush on the floor of the Republican-run Senate.

As the battle mushrooms, it threatens to undermine campaign season assertions by the administration that it has shown a steady hand on security matters and that Republicans should be trusted over Democrats on such issues.

Bush still has many congressional allies, including House and Senate leaders and conservatives, who want to align themselves with the president's tough stance on interrogation and prosecution. The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday passed a bill that supports the administration's position by 52-8.

But that support is not universal. Rep. Steve Buyer (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., said he told Bush during the president's visit that he should heed the military's top uniformed lawyers, who have previously opposed some provisions of the president's plan.

Buyer and other Republicans are expected to align themselves with McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war during Vietnam. Last year, he overcame Bush's objections to pass legislation banning cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees.

Leaving his closed-door meeting with the House GOP caucus, Bush said he would "continue to work with members of the Congress to get good legislation." He complimented a House bill but did not mention the Senate version.

"I reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland," he said. Bush was accompanied by Vice President
Dick Cheney and White House political adviser Karl Rove.

The White House also released a letter to lawmakers signed by the military's top uniformed lawyers. Saying they wanted to clarify past testimony on Capitol Hill in which they opposed the administration's plan, the lawyers wrote that they "do not object" to sections of Bush's proposal for the treatment of detainees.

Two congressional aides who favor McCain's plan said the military lawyers signed that letter after refusing to endorse an earlier one offered by the
Pentagon's general counsel, William Haynes, that expressed more forceful support for Bush's plan.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Asked if Haynes had encouraged them to write the letter, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "Not that I'm aware of."

Another Bush bill would give legal status to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a party-line vote Wednesday, but it is stalled in the House amid opposition from Democrats and some Republicans concerned that the program violates civil liberties.
User avatar
Neely8
2016 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:47 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Neely8 »

Mister Bushice wrote:Why not move on to more international targets, say the geneva convention? Who cares what it might mean in the long run, or what repercussions it may have in the international community, as long as Bush gets to do things his way, right?

Condi is getting very good at Bushspeak, too. She makes a wonderful puppet.
Senate panel defies Bush on terror

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 47 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A rebellious Senate committee defied
President Bush on Thursday and approved terror-detainee legislation he has vowed to block, deepening Republican conflict over terrorism and national security in the middle of the election season.
ADVERTISEMENT

Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, normally a Bush supporter, pushed the measure through his Armed Services Committee by a 15-9 vote, with Warner and three other GOP lawmakers joining Democrats. The vote set the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor as early as next week.

In an embarrassment to the White House,
Colin Powell — Bush's first secretary of state — announced his opposition to his old boss' plan, saying it would hurt the country. Powell's successor, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, jumped to the president's defense in a letter of her own.

All this played out after Bush started his day by journeying to the Capitol to try nailing down support for his own version of the legislation — and by issuing a threat to the maverick Republicans.

"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House.

The president's measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting
CIA and other U.S. interrogators against prosecution for using methods that may violate the Geneva Conventions.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his letter.

Powell said Bush's bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, "would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Firing back, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Powell was "confused" about the White House plan. Later, Snow said he probably shouldn't have used that word.

"I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists, too," he said.

The administration also produced its own letter from Rice. She wrote that narrowing the standards for detainee treatment as Bush has proposed "would add meaningful definition and clarification to vague terms in the treaties."

In addition, CIA Director Michael Hayden wrote a letter to his employees saying he has asked Congress "to help define our responsibilities so that we and the
Department of Justice can judge the appropriateness of any procedures we would propose to use" while questioning terrorism suspects. He said Bush's bill did that.

In the committee vote, Warner was supported by GOP Sens. McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. Warner, McCain and Graham had been the most active senators opposing Bush's plan. The vote by the moderate Collins underscored that there might be broad enough GOP support to successfully take on Bush on the floor of the Republican-run Senate.

As the battle mushrooms, it threatens to undermine campaign season assertions by the administration that it has shown a steady hand on security matters and that Republicans should be trusted over Democrats on such issues.

Bush still has many congressional allies, including House and Senate leaders and conservatives, who want to align themselves with the president's tough stance on interrogation and prosecution. The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday passed a bill that supports the administration's position by 52-8.

But that support is not universal. Rep. Steve Buyer (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., said he told Bush during the president's visit that he should heed the military's top uniformed lawyers, who have previously opposed some provisions of the president's plan.

Buyer and other Republicans are expected to align themselves with McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war during Vietnam. Last year, he overcame Bush's objections to pass legislation banning cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees.

Leaving his closed-door meeting with the House GOP caucus, Bush said he would "continue to work with members of the Congress to get good legislation." He complimented a House bill but did not mention the Senate version.

"I reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland," he said. Bush was accompanied by Vice President
Dick Cheney and White House political adviser Karl Rove.

The White House also released a letter to lawmakers signed by the military's top uniformed lawyers. Saying they wanted to clarify past testimony on Capitol Hill in which they opposed the administration's plan, the lawyers wrote that they "do not object" to sections of Bush's proposal for the treatment of detainees.

Two congressional aides who favor McCain's plan said the military lawyers signed that letter after refusing to endorse an earlier one offered by the
Pentagon's general counsel, William Haynes, that expressed more forceful support for Bush's plan.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Asked if Haynes had encouraged them to write the letter, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "Not that I'm aware of."

Another Bush bill would give legal status to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a party-line vote Wednesday, but it is stalled in the House amid opposition from Democrats and some Republicans concerned that the program violates civil liberties.

Do our enemies subscribe to the Geneva Convention? That would mean that they would have to put on actual uniforms and treat their American prisoners humanely. I mean right now they just chop their heads off......

America is so evil and the Muslims are sweet as sugar.

:meds:
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 31631
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

If we descend to their level, then what will be left to make us "better" than them?

The fact that we have more money and more bombs?
I'm sorry but I, and hopefully most Americans, aspire for a little bit more than that.

They torture and murder their own countrymen because of religious differences, too. You think that because they do that, we should be doing it here too?
User avatar
OCmike
Cursed JFFL Owner
Posts: 3626
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Location: South Bay

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by OCmike »

Neely8 wrote:Do our enemies subscribe to the Geneva Convention? That would mean that they would have to put on actual uniforms and treat their American prisoners humanely. I mean right now they just chop their heads off......

America is so evil and the Muslims are sweet as sugar.

:meds:
Look, the problem is that even though they may be "enemy combatants", it's bullshit to put them on trial and then disallow evidence that may clear them, just because that evidence is classified. This is America and in this country you're supposed to get a fair trial, right?
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

Neely8 wrote:
America is so evil and the Muslims are sweet as sugar.
Take it up with Warner (obviously a terrorist sympathizer), McCain (ditto), and Colin Powell (a true subversive and enemy of freedom).......

they're your enemies now.......

oh btw Coods and/or mvs.....when do you anticipate the Dems to start yanking ABC licenses.......isn't that what you both said the Dems were implying if ABC chose to run that 9/11 show......

who'll be the first to have their license pulled.........
Last edited by Felix on Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Neely8
2016 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:47 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Neely8 »

OCmike wrote:
Neely8 wrote:Do our enemies subscribe to the Geneva Convention? That would mean that they would have to put on actual uniforms and treat their American prisoners humanely. I mean right now they just chop their heads off......

America is so evil and the Muslims are sweet as sugar.

:meds:
Look, the problem is that even though they may be "enemy combatants", it's bullshit to put them on trial and then disallow evidence that may clear them, just because that evidence is classified. This is America and in this country you're supposed to get a fair trial, right?

The geneva convention applies both ways. So they don't have to play by the rules but we do? It's so funny because all the international criticism is coming our way yet we play by the rules. I think the Politically Correct way to fight a war is going to be our downfall. We need to take the gloves off and take care of business. The way things used to be done. Don't think there was this much handwringing during WW2.

Do non US citizens have the rights that US citizens are entitled to? Then yes they should get a fair trial. Do our soldiers get a fair trial before their dome is lopped off?
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

Neely8 wrote: I think the Politically Correct way to fight a war is going to be our downfall.
when did obeying the law change from "the right thing" to being "politically correct"
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Neely8
2016 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:47 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Neely8 »

Felix wrote:
Neely8 wrote: I think the Politically Correct way to fight a war is going to be our downfall.
when did obeying the law change from "the right thing" to being "politically correct"

When your enemies don't obey it themselves.....

Were we obeying the law when we carpet bombed cities in WW2? When we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan?

Oh and to answer your question about the ABC licenses they won't be pulled. ABC edited out the parts that the whiney Dems didn't like. Im sure if they didn't then you would have seen action.....
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

Neely8 wrote:
Oh and to answer your question about the ABC licenses they won't be pulled. ABC edited out the parts that the whiney Dems didn't like. Im sure if they didn't then you would have seen action.....
according to ABC, nothing significant was changed.......

except those pesky, blatant falsehoods......

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc ... -bloggers/
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Neely8
2016 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:47 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Neely8 »

Felix wrote:
Neely8 wrote:
Oh and to answer your question about the ABC licenses they won't be pulled. ABC edited out the parts that the whiney Dems didn't like. Im sure if they didn't then you would have seen action.....
according to ABC, nothing significant was changed.......

except those pesky, blatant falsehoods......

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc ... -bloggers/

So then why did it end 20 minutes early both nights? Just took out some commercials?
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 31631
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

20 minutes of pesky blatant falsehoods.

Reading comp much?
User avatar
Neely8
2016 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:47 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Post by Neely8 »

Mikey wrote:20 minutes of pesky blatant falsehoods.

Reading comp much?

The Dems say they were false. Do I believe them......NO

No pesky blatent falsehoods in Farenheit 9/11 right???
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Post by Felix »

Neely8 wrote: Do I believe them......NO
even though they've got proof they were lies........

yet you refuse to belive them.......nice......

hope your never on a jury........
No pesky blatent falsehoods in Farenheit 9/11 right???
don't know, I never saw it...........

if there were, you should have been all over it.......
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Neely8
2016 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:47 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Post by Neely8 »

Felix wrote:
Neely8 wrote: Do I believe them......NO
even though they've got proof they were lies........

yet you refuse to belive them.......nice......

hope your never on a jury........
No pesky blatent falsehoods in Farenheit 9/11 right???
don't know, I never saw it...........

if there were, you should have been all over it.......

Proof as in their word? Ill believe that right about never......
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Post by Felix »

Neely8 wrote:

Proof as in their word? Ill believe that right about never......
I agree.......much better to believe some hack writers rather than documented proof.....

good strategy....
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Neely8
2016 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 2243
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:47 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Post by Neely8 »

Felix wrote:
Neely8 wrote:

Proof as in their word? Ill believe that right about never......
I agree.......much better to believe some hack writers rather than documented proof.....

good strategy....
Got a link to those documents?
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote:
No need to put them on trial at all. We can just toss them in a hole and leave them there for the duration of the conflict or until we decide to try them for war crimes.

These shitheads don't even rate POW status and POWs don't get lawyers. They don't get trials. They sit in prison until the end of the war.
interesting.......

a large group of Republicans say you're full of shit.......
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

The bottom line is if we fuck with the basic principles of the geneva convention in order to circumvent the intent of those rules governing prisoner treatment JUST to enable this no accountability administration to do whatever the fuck they want, we effectively set an international precedent that will result in the geneva convention being discarded as a guideline, which will in turn mean all gloves are off everywhere for everyone.

Extremist muslims are the ones lopping off domes. what happens when everyone disposes of prisoners that way, or just summarily mass executes them instead of bothering to take them as prisoners?

This" Well they do it so why shouldn't we " Mentality is way off base. It's what escalates wars into eventual total destruction, on both sides. The moment we become our enemy they will up the ante, and it will spiral down from there.

There is absolutely no reason to give a green light to a stalin-esque interrogation style.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote: A quick glance at history, not to mention a brief perusal of the Geneva Conventions, offers conclusive proof that they are full of shit.
so now you know more about the Geneva Convention than the former General of the Army....... :lol:

you must be one smart mofo.........
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 31631
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Mikey »

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote: A quick glance at history, not to mention a brief perusal of the Geneva Conventions, offers conclusive proof that they are full of shit.
so now you know more about the Geneva Convention than the former General of the Army....... :lol:

you must be one smart mofo.........
Oh, he is.
















Just ask him.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote: we effectively set an international precedent that will result in the geneva convention being discarded as a guideline, which will in turn mean all gloves are off everywhere for everyone.
So what?

We don't fight anybody who acts IAW the Geneva Convention anyway. You idiots fail to understand that this is strictly a reciprocal arrangement.
If it didn't exist at all, NO prisoners would be taken anywhere unless they were important enough to gain leverage in a hostage swap.

The average grunt would be executed on the spot without the implied restraints of the GC.
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote: We captured over half a million German troops in WW2. Why don't you go ahead and link me up to their trials.

When you're finished there, provide links to the trials of all Korean and Chinese prisoners taken during the Korean War. Once complete, provide records for the trials of Vietnamese POWs and Iraqi POWs from Desert Storm.

Thanks in advance.
here's a better idea.....

tell me why Colin Powell is full of shit......

TIA
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

A change in the way the GC is interpreted has more long term and far reaching implications than this local religious skirmish we're mired in iraq.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote:
If Powell thinks it is a bad idea to legally endorse coercive interrogation methods, he is a fucking pussy who would rather see dead Americans than "angry" Muslims, but that's no surprise to me. I saw the results of his pathetic handwringing up close and personal.

so now Powell would prefer to "see dead Americans"........obviously he's is a terrorist sympathizer.........

is there anybody you fucking dorks won't throw under the bus.........

btw.....you want to link me up to that "backpedal"......
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:A change in the way the GC is interpreted has more long term and far reaching implications than this local religious skirmish we're mired in iraq.
No, it doesn't. In the extraordinarily unlikely chance that we ever fight somebody who actually does observe the GC, we can extend that same courtesy to them.

What part of reciprocal agreement are you struggling to comprehend?
Oh I don't know - what part of internationally accepted terms of war conduct for over 5 decades are you failing to get?

And you keep saying "We" well "We" might not fight every upcoming war, but when we make the GC useless, we might be.

You might have noticed that hezbollah and israel followed it. As soon as Bush stomps it into uselessness, the rules will all change.
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote:
Obviously he does since that would be the direct result of the policy he endorses.
one of the primary reasons he cited was a fear that if this were passed, it would seriously endanger our soldiers on the ground......

so, I'm assuming you consider it more important that the US employ "torture" than potentially saving soldiers lives.....

nothing like having your priorities straight........
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Oh I don't know - what part of internationally accepted terms of war conduct for over 5 decades are you failing to get?
Accepted by whom? Certainly not the Koreans and Chinese in the Korean War. Damn sure not by the North Vietnamese in the Vietnam War or the Iraqis in Desert Storm.
You might have noticed that hezbollah and israel followed it.
Hezbollah observed the GC? Guess again, dipshit. Hostage taking is a war crime. Endangering civilians by locating military assets in civilian areas is a war crime.

So save your bullshit about Hezbollah observing the GC. You don't what the fuck you're talking about.
They didn't kill them outright, and once the war started, they aren't "hostages".

After the war they negotiate a prisoner exchange. Call 'em hostages if you like. If they are still alive and have not been treated brutally or killed, the GC is in play.

That's all far closer to GC terms than dome lopping on the spot is, don't ya think?
User avatar
Terry in Crapchester
2012 March Madness Champ
Posts: 8995
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:56 pm
Location: Back in the 'burbs

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Terry in Crapchester »

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote: A quick glance at history, not to mention a brief perusal of the Geneva Conventions, offers conclusive proof that they are full of shit.
so now you know more about the Geneva Convention than the former General of the Army....... :lol:

you must be one smart mofo.........
When I was in the Navy, they had a name for people like that .......

Fleet Ensigns.

Of course, an Ensign was an Officer, and mvscal definitely wasn't an officer, so I suppose another name would be necessary for him.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
User avatar
Cuda
IKYABWAI
Posts: 10195
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:55 pm
Location: Your signature is too long

Post by Cuda »

Powell's letter shows what an utter fucktard he really is.

World opinion? If there's one thing that can be said about world opinion, its that it is almost unfailingly full of shit.
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

and yet, Bush is using that archaic, cookie cutter bullshit to re-write the rules to suit his own needs.

No arrogance there. None at all. :meds:
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote:
My goodness! Soldiers fighting a war in danger!! Can't have that, can we? Is he trying to say that they're pulling their punches now?
weren't you the guy a few months back saying it was imperative that we put the five guys who were alledged to have raped and killed that Iraqi girl and here family on trial because not doing so would endanger our military personel on the ground.....damn dude, you used to be so concerned and caring......

what changed.....
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:So what? Is the Geneva Convention engraved in stone and not subject to amendment or revision?
Not without international agreement. Despite you and your boys mentality, we don't get to decide world policy all by ourselves.
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote: There is just a slight bit of difference between our soldiers raping and murdering the civilians we are supposed to be helping and using effective interrogation tactics against the terrorists who are trying to kill them and us.

Of course you know that and are simply being deliberately obtuse now that your "argument" is shredded.
so, what you're saying here is that in some instances increasing the risk for our soldiers on the ground is an acceptable policy.......

nice logic there dumbfuck........ :lol:
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Despite you and your boys mentality, we don't get to decide world policy all by ourselves.
No, but we certainly do get to decide our policy towards international agreements.
But at the same time when we deviate from a standard to suit our own needs we are warping the intent of the agreements.
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9271
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Since the bill of rights has already been stomped on

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote:
That is a fact, but it is not applicable in this instance.
so if I'm getting what your saying here, is that by condoning the torture of captives this shows the people of Iraq (and the Middle East as a whole) that we abide by the law so long as it doesn't interfere with our nation buildi.....er.......Road to Freedom tour....

otherwise, it's best just to ignore those laws that get in the way........

yeah, that sets a good example.......

keep diggin tard....you'll eventually reach China.......
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:But at the same time when we deviate from a standard to suit our own needs we are warping the intent of the agreements.
When there is no reciprocity, there is no agreement.
When there is no agreement, no reciprocity is possible. Works both ways.
We aren't fighting anybody who observes the GC. That means we deliberately place ourselves at a disadvantage without any corresponding benefit to offset that disadvantage.
Not right now we aren't, but no one knows what the future holds. If we trash what common rules we do have, we open the door to greater atrocities rather than having the possibility of imposing a higher moral standard.
Why would any sane individual agree to that?
The trouble with you bushites is your total lack of future vision. You see Iraq as the end all and be all of the war on terror, and so want to bend the international agreements regarding prisoner treatment to suit this battle with no regard for the future and how that type of change to the GC document would affect things 10 years from now, when the enemy could be anyone. And because of the changes made now in the GC, we will have made ourselves and our soldiers of the future that much more vulnerable to instant death or torture because the rules were disregarded NOW.
User avatar
Cuda
IKYABWAI
Posts: 10195
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:55 pm
Location: Your signature is too long

Post by Cuda »

Since when has ANY enemy of the US actually complied with the Geneva Conventions, dumbass?
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
User avatar
Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Insha'Allah
Posts: 19031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
Location: filling molotovs

Post by Shlomart Ben Yisrael »

mvscal wrote:...prevent the deaths of Americans or our allies...
You keep crushing children's fingers with hammers, and Israel will keep on spying on your government and
conducting industrial espionage.

What a bargain...

:meds:

...all at the low, low cost of your dignity and your souls.
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
User avatar
Cuda
IKYABWAI
Posts: 10195
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:55 pm
Location: Your signature is too long

Post by Cuda »

Martyred wrote:
You keep crushing children's fingers with hammers,...

Don't try to make it sound like such a bad thing

You have no real problem with the what- you just hate the why
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:When there is no agreement, no reciprocity is possible. Works both ways.
...uh riiight. You do know that Al Qaeda is not a contracting party to the Geneva Convention...right? There is no agreement between us. Do you understand?
No shit.
Not right now we aren't, but no one knows what the future holds.
We will deal with the future in the future, in the meantime we have a situation in the present that demands our full attention. There is no one size fits all approach that will be appropriate for every situation. The soft touch worked great with half-hearted German conscripts in WW2, but it doesn work at all against fanatical Jihadists. If plying them with pie and ice cream would get us the intelligence we need, then I would be all for it...but that doesn't work.
Once we modify the established international rules for prisoner treatment, there is no going back. Sure, we now have an enemy that does not adhere to those rules, but the consequences of changing them for the little gain that unhindered torture would provide compared to merely employing better interrogation techniques that don't involve physical torture is not worth the long term price. We should not have to become like them in order to defeat them. We should be better than that.

If we have to do some unpleasant things to some unpleasant people to secure the information we need to prevent the deaths of Americans or our allies, then I have no problem with that at all. If you do, I suggest that you re-examine your priorties.
There are no points scored for moral highground here. You live or you die. That's all.
That is an oversimplification. We have survived this long without having to up the ante re:torture. Don't tell me this is a necessity. It is a baldfaced attempt to harness more power, that is all.
10 years from now, when the enemy could be anyone.
And ten years from now we will handle that enemy in whichever way their behavior dictates that we handle them. Every situation is unique and requires a unique approach. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Not if we pull the plug on our options now. This is a shortsighted administration that has gone off half cocked on nearly every issue placed before it since day one, only to find out after the fact that "intelligence was incorrect" or that "things were mishandled".


They don't need the power. They will abuse the power. They shouldn't be given the power.
Post Reply