Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on August 11, 2003, 10:47:11 AM
-
Yahoo news Link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030811/ap_on_re_us/human_shield_fine_1)
U.S. Fines Woman for Being 'Human Shield'
2 hours, 1 minute ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
SARASOTA, Fla. - A retired schoolteacher who went to Iraq (news - web sites) to serve as a "human shield" against the U.S. invasion is facing thousands of dollars in U.S. government fines, which she is refusing to pay.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury said in a March letter to Faith Fippinger that she broke the law by crossing the Iraqi border before the war. Her travel to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions that prohibited American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."
She and others from 30 countries spread out through Iraq to prevent the war. She spent about three months there. Only about 20 of nearly 300 "human shields" were Americans, she said.
Fippinger, who returned home May 4, is being fined at least $10,000, but she has refused to pay. She could face up to 12 years in prison.
In her response to the charges, she wrote the government that "if it comes to fines or imprisonment, "please be aware that I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons." Since she won't pay, she said, "perhaps the alternative should be considered."
The government also has asked Fippinger, 62, to detail her travels to Iraq and any financial transactions she made. In her response, Fippinger wrote that the only money she spent was on food and emergency supplies.
If Fippinger does not pay, the fine may increase, and the money will be drawn from her retirement paycheck, her Social Security (news - web sites) check or any of her assets, officials said.
"She was (in Iraq) in violation of U.S. sanctions," said Taylor Griffin, a Treasury Department (news - web sites) spokesman. "That's what happens."
Shortly before the U.S. invasion in March, Fippinger was one of several dozen human shields scattered around a refinery in Baghdad.
"We are planning to stay here in the refinery if war breaks out," Fippinger said at the time. "We are staying here because we think this war is unjust."
I say stick it to her!
-
Oh wow....had we only slapped Hanoi Jane around the same way...
Be-You-Tee-Ful...pound the taxpayers out some nice license plates, lady!
-
So I guess the human shield guidance beacons didn't work?
Before breaking the law, one really should research the consequences and be prepared for them. If they don't believe those consequences are fair, well... it wasn't because they didn't know about them.
BTW... Anyone heard anything about any of the "human shields" being killed by bombs? I only remember Baghdad Bob saying something about us blowing up a busload of them, but haven't really seen any news on it.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Before breaking the law, one really should research the consequences and be prepared for them. If they don't believe those consequences are fair, well... it wasn't because they didn't know about them.
....and ignorance of the law is NO excuse. I've had a judge tell me that to my face. :)
lol @ this woman. She deserves everything she gets.
-
I agree curval... but in this instance, I don't believe anyone can be accused of "ignorance of the law". I'm sure they got it from all directions before leaving.
MiniD
-
Could someone link in that article...I think it was a UK one...about the guy who went over to be a human shield and discovered it wasnt quite what he thought it would be? Wound up seeing thru the BS and went home
Ugh...thought I had it bookmarked...its a good read.
Good point, MiniD about the law...this self righteous woman better like prison clothes :D
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I agree curval... but in this instance, I don't believe anyone can be accused of "ignorance of the law". I'm sure they got it from all directions before leaving.
MiniD
I "think" you misunderstood what I was saying. This woman cannot argue HER case based upon "Oh I didn't know about those laws"...even if she wasn't TOLD what the rules were. The onus is always upon the accused to know what the law is before they break a law.
-
Ummm... I didn't misunderstand. The point is it shouldn't be news that she's being fined. I'm sure its not to her nor the government. To be honest, it would be bigger news to report she's not going to be imprissoned.
She knew this would happen. Its not really news that she's fighting it. And ignorance of the law really didn't come into play on this one.
MiniD
-
Ahhh, sweet justice.
Ask Saddam to pay her fine.
-
Burn da old biatch !
-
She's worthy of her sentence. But what I wanna know is what are they gonna do with Sean Penn? Didn't he travel to Iraq and sit on Hussein's lap? What about that trip?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I don't believe anyone can be accused of "ignorance of the law". MiniD
Sorry for harping on this MiniD, it is just a question of semantics. In the initial response to me (above) you said you don't believe anyone can be ACCUSED of ignorance of the law. No one is "accusing" anyone of anything related to ignorance of the law.
All I am saying is that she can't use ignorance of the law as an excuse in her defense. It may or may not be something she tries to use..that is yet to be seen.
-
You island dwelling knob.
I said I agreed that ignorance is no excuse and cannot be used as defense. Its just that it doesn't even remotely apply here.
Did you know the sky is blue as viewed through our 19% oxygen atmosphere? That's true too... but doesn't really have anything to do with why the "human sheild(s)" are not paying their fines.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You island dwelling knob.
LOL...
You brought it up..ya big fat drunk bastage.
"Before breaking the law, one really should research the consequences and be prepared for them. If they don't believe those consequences are fair, well... it wasn't because they didn't know about them. " - MiniD
-
In her response to the charges, she wrote the government that "if it comes to fines or imprisonment, "please be aware that I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons." Since she won't pay, she said, "perhaps the alternative should be considered."
So, when did she stop paying taxes?
-
what exact law/sanction did she break are they saying she spent money in iraq and thus violated sanctions? that would make this a personal bush witch hunt ?
and those of you advocating the phisical or monitary harm of a old lady on political beliefs. i find you dispicable.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
[SARASOTA, Fla. - A retired schoolteacher who went to Iraq to serve as a "human shield" against the U.S. invasion is facing thousands of dollars in U.S. government fines, which she is refusing to pay.
I believe this is the woman that I heard being interviewed on my local community radio station about a month or two or three back. I had posted on this board a few snippets of their interview with her. In a nutshell, she was useless to the Iraqis because she never made it to the refinery target area during the bomb attack, so she and a few other shields went to the hospital where she got a look at war first-hand. In my opinion, she was completely clueless about the war, and any war in general.
US sanctions were in place for a reason. If I recall the interview correctly, she was cooperating with a foreign government that was combatant against the US. I'm surprised she's not up on charges of treason.
-
and those of you advocating the phisical or monitary harm of a old lady on political beliefs. i find you dispicable.
LOL "political beliefs".
She can believe or say whatever she wants.
It's the giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a war part that is at issue.
She's a criminal and deserves to be punished like one.
Being old, female, and stupid does not exempt her from following the law.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
what exact law/sanction did she break are they saying she spent money in iraq and thus violated sanctions? that would make this a personal bush witch hunt ?
and those of you advocating the phisical or monitary harm of a old lady on political beliefs. i find you dispicable.
Just when I think you can't possibly say anything that makes you look dumber, you go and do it.
You never let me down.
-
Sentence her to prison until the completion of a one million word essay on Treason. The cost of her incarceration, as short or long as it may be, should be deducted from her pension.
-
Freedom of political expression is what seperates a Democracy from Facism. Ironic that a game based on a war in which our grandfathers died fighting facism would attract so many.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Freedom of political expression is what seperates a Democracy from Facism. Ironic that a game based on a war in which our grandfathers died fighting facism would attract so many.
Gaming a war teaches an understanding and appreciation of it.
-
Freedom of political expression is what seperates a Democracy from Facism. Ironic that a game based on a war in which our grandfathers died fighting facism would attract so many. - Virage
Virage, what is ironic is that you describe America as a fascist country.
Freedom of political expression doesnt mean that you don't have to obey the law. If you want to violate the law for the sake of "political expression," fine. Just accept your punishment.
At least the old lady isn't whining or crying. She knows she violated the law. She will accept her punishment, which, by the way, would probably be execution in any fascist country.
-
Virage
Since when is aiding the enemy's military during wartime considered to be "political expression"?
I suppose McVeigh and the 9/11 hijackers were just "expressing" their political views.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Freedom of political expression is what seperates a Democracy from Facism. Ironic that a game based on a war in which our grandfathers died fighting facism would attract so many.
Freedom of political expression was used to a great extent in the states by people vociferously opposed to the war. That is not what this is about. This is about traveling to a country we are at war with and lending aid to the enemy. I guess you could call that political expression... right up until you tried getting back into the country.
MiniD
-
Didn't she know they were practically giving away "wood chipper" rides?
:D
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
what exact law/sanction did she break are they saying she spent money in iraq and thus violated sanctions? that would make this a personal bush witch hunt ?
and those of you advocating the phisical or monitary harm of a old lady on political beliefs. i find you dispicable.
I find your lack of proper grammar and spelling equally disturbing.
She's being punished for her actions, not her beliefs. If you need me to explain the difference, I have a couple of hours to kill.
I also find your lack of faith disturbing (sound of mechanical breathing).
-
there was no state of war. it was completly within the presidents and congresses ability to declare war they didnt. they cant get her on treason as there was no treason. we have been there.
she hurt no one.
they are only going after her to be vindictive because of her beliefs.
if you agree to this hogwash because you think the invasion of iraq was justified even though you know its just harassment that will never stand the light of day. i stand by my statement that you are dispicable.
p.s. diablo
im dislexic if you find it annoiing it dont read it. i believe the board allows for that. i would prefer it also .
-
She probably went there to help hiding the WMDs. That's why noone can find them.
-
Free Faith Fippinger !!
Free Faith Fippinger !!
Free Faith Fippinger !!
catchy ain't it :)
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
there was no state of war. it was completly within the presidents and congresses ability to declare war they didnt. they cant get her on treason as there was no treason. we have been there.
she hurt no one.
they are only going after her to be vindictive because of her beliefs.
if you agree to this hogwash because you think the invasion of iraq was justified even though you know its just harassment that will never stand the light of day. i stand by my statement that you are dispicable.
p.s. diablo
im dislexic if you find it annoiing it dont read it. i believe the board allows for that. i would prefer it also .
Hey, you did it again. Every statement is dumber than the last. The law is the law. She broke it.
You can't even spell the name of the disease you claim to have? Since when does dYslexia account for your horrible spelling and grammar? I attribute it to lack of education.
-
She broke a bunch of laws, and now she is gonna get punished. Do I even have to mention the moral hypocrisy of this so called "peace" and "human rights" activist going abroad to protect the regime of Saddam Hussein?
-
How exactly did she break the sanction laws?
By buying food with yankee dollar so she can live over there.. eh? :D
I don't see how a 'human shield' could break the sanctions, unless its one with a lot of money and starts pouring it into the country.
Doesn't it make those several reporters and other people over the years guilty as well?
-
I wonder what the Soviet Union, China, NK or Cuba or any of those other crappy countrys, those smelly hippies admire. would do in a situation like this?
-
Actually in my opinion she gave aid & comfort to the enemy. She helped defend the enemy from our forces.
In my book that makes her a traitor & she needs hanging.
Outside, on the courthouse steps, with a gaziillion people watching what happens.
Brand her name in the halls of infamy along with Gen Arnold.
Yeah ok so I'm a grumpy ol fart.
You don't want to support the troops fine, but don't support those they are fighting without considering the consequences.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Oh wow....had we only slapped Hanoi Jane around the same way...
Be-You-Tee-Ful...pound the taxpayers out some nice license plates, lady!
wonder if it is too late to bring her up on similiar charges ....
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Actually in my opinion she gave aid & comfort to the enemy. She helped defend the enemy from our forces.
In my book that makes her a traitor & she needs hanging.
Outside, on the courthouse steps, with a gaziillion people watching what happens.
This way americans are guilty of starting a war based on lies and broken alot of laws it has signed.
Human right laws comes to my mind as the first thing which was violated.
Some people sure can yell alot after human rights etc., but surprisingly are willing to violate it themselves.
-
Fishu has a point! These US violations of human rights laws must stop! :rolleyes:
Fishu why are you modern day europeans so damn bizzare in your perception of the USA as great satan?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Fishu why are you modern day europeans so damn bizzare in your perception of the USA as great satan?
Envy.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
p.s. diablo
im dislexic if you find it annoiing it dont read it. i believe the board allows for that. i would prefer it also .
I believe the board allows for me to read anything you post but I would prefer you to just quit posting. Your posts are quite annoying.
(http://zzz.com.ru/Choke.gif)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Fishu has a point! These US violations of human rights laws must stop! :rolleyes:
Fishu why are you modern day europeans so damn bizzare in your perception of the USA as great satan?
Did I say anything about US being great satan or even closely?
no, thats a product of your ignorance.
Ripsnort,
I do not envy hypocrisy or arrogance.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Did I say anything about US being great satan or even closely?
no, thats a product of your ignorance.
Ripsnort,
I do not envy hypocrisy or arrogance.
Do you have anything better than blanket statements with no backbone?
OUR hypocrisy? What about YOURS?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/finl-j01.shtml
-
Marlet,
What about that?
I didn't vote for her, nor did I support her from the very begining.
She got basically kicked out of the goverment and about nobody were sad about it.
Investigations are also underway.
So what exactly is the big hypocricy here, which drives the people and politics?
Here, if you say anything which makes these 'patriotic' americans sad, you'll see alot of something of the three, depending on the issue / person: ignorance/arrogance/hypocrisy.
It isn't just one or two or three persons.
oh yeah.. of course you're tagged immediatly as anti-american or painting great satan over US if you critisize them.
What an easy way out of the critisicism huh?
Seems like it cannot be possible that US could be wrong with something.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Marlet,
What about that?
I didn't vote for her, nor did I support her from the very begining.
She got basically kicked out of the goverment and about nobody were sad about it.
So what exactly is the big hypocricy here, which drives the people and politics?
Here, if you say anything which makes these 'patriotic' americans sad, you'll see alot of something of the three, depending on the issue / person: ignorance/arrogance/hypocrisy.
It isn't just one or two or three persons.
oh yeah.. of course you're tagged immediatly as anti-american or painting great satan over US if you critisize them.
What an easy way out of the critisicism huh?
Ahhh, so if it happens on THIS side of the ocean, it's hypocrisy and arrogance, but if it happens on YOUR side, it's patriotism. I get it now.
Go back to your igloo building.
-
Huh? you're making no sense.
I don't see what such thing has to do with popular hypocrisy or arrogance.
Really, I don't know what you're trying to say with that.
She was a jerk and got dealt with.. so.. what about it?
I don't mean politicians alone with hypocrisy / arrogance, im talking about these patriotic forum posters.
Some things seems to be a taboo over these boards, which are covered with one of the three things previously mentioned.
What does that have to do with some political scandals exactly?
I fail to see your point and you're only taking it further without letting me know what you're after.
Is that some new way to make someone look bad, speak over him?
1. I didn't defend the case
2. I didn't call you anti-finnish or something similar
3. I'm not putting down it's facts with some irrelevant things
The thing is.. it was a bad thing and the people responsible have been given their boot marks and investigations are underway.
I don't see whats the disagreement here or something .. I don't even know the point.
Lets see.. if Finland clearly violates some human right laws, I'm not going to defend it by saying "they're terrorists!" (...something which isn't even proven yet)
If Finland starts a war in some nobody-knows-nothing-about-country, and has no real base for the reasons of war, I'm not going to defend the war with "hey, its an evil dictator and we'll free the people from oppression, so who could care!"
etc. etc.
Especially I'm not going to yell out loud people as anti-finnish or something alike if they say something bad about Finland.
Definately not going to start similar campaign as renaming french fries to freedom fries
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Lets see.. if Finland clearly violates some human right laws, I'm not going to defend it by saying "they're terrorists!" (...something which isn't even proven yet)
If Finland starts a war in some nobody-knows-nothing-about-country, and has no real base for the reasons of war, I'm not going to defend the war with "hey, its an evil dictator and we'll free the people from oppression, so who could care!"
etc. etc.
What human rights laws were broken?
12 years of failure to comply with a UN resolution isn't reason for military action? Providing a harbor for terrorists to train isn't a reason for military action? Either one would work in my book. I don't file that under hypocrisy OR arrogance.
-
You fail to see the point what I've meant with the hypocricy/arrogance/ignorance here - it is the replies from some people when something bad is claimed of US, not the thing itself.
Some people here do really have hard times chewing down opinions from the other people, which crosses with their beliefs, without some silly remarks.. like saying the guy is an anti-american and/or similar.
They simply try to ignore the issue and flame down the person.
Totally inobjective behaviour, which falls to somewhere in hypocrisy/arrogance/ignorance depending on the case & reply.
Thats what I've meant for most parts.
Like the case why the war began..
the reasons primarly used to start the war have not been found to be true so far and several experts have found it to be hardly likely for any kind of WMD to be found or even existing in first place.
If someone says this, some people here might react to it in a certain manner: they might call the person anti-american or saying the person is thinking US as the great satan.. which both are quite far fetched comments as anything but a bad joke.
Then they can also resort to note off the war with "well saddam was a bad guy and we'll free the oppressed people of Iraq".
What ticks off most people about the war, is that the reasons to start the war (aka get people to back it up) are not found to be true yet and the freedom speeches from the goverment are found to be just hypocritic backup plan B if the plan A fails.
There was hardly any terrorists either, so those things doesnt get much attention either.
This is mostly because of three things: a) theres plentiful of dictators around and nowhere was it used as the primary reason to invade iraq, b) there wasnt much terrorists to talk of, and c) theres a bunch of countries where from the terrorist funding and training for most parts originates, yet hardly a word about them.
so when you combine the answers to negative issues of US from some people over here, you don't have to go far to find a level of arrogance, ignorance and/or hypocrisy from the replies.
None of them uses time to make up their replies, they rather resort to oldish ignorance.
-
You didn't answer my questions.
-
martlet,
well, that was just one example thing of the laws broken..
You can look at the guantamo or whatever place, that place alone breaks a few.
There are some other law violations from other areas if we'd be accurate about those.. however I don't bother keeping a book of those.
Not a heart issue to me.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
martlet,
well, that was just one example thing of the laws broken..
You can look at the guantamo or whatever place, that place alone breaks a few.
There are some other law violations from other areas if we'd be accurate about those.. however I don't bother keeping a book of those.
Not a heart issue to me.
Again, you didn't answer my questions.
-
Martlet,
about the complied and terrorist thing?
Obviously theres been no WMD found so far, so the biggest discompliance reason isn't yet valid.
Supposedly some oil has been smuggled out as well, but so are diamonds from some african countries.
some discussion was caused by the rockets which had little bit extended range over the sanction rules - but inspectors did some argumentation about this themselves too, whether it was a big deal - iraqis complied after while and began destroying those.
What comes to terrorist, I'm sure you'd find those from almost every country in the middle east and I doubt Iraq would be high on the list.
What comes to complying with some rules regulations laws or whatever, I'm sure you'd find many countries that hasn't complied with certain things, including the western countries.
US for one isn't anywhere near a saint with its international policies.
So someones should really look up to their own goverment as well, if they start talking about every little detail where Iraq didn't comply with.
Here is govermental hypocrisy and might as well be hypocrisy of people who takes it up with extreme detail to make right for the Iraq war, but neverminding or downplay faults of their own country - sure their country might not be under sanctions, but there are many other rules, regulations, laws, etc. which can be violated.
Saddam can be a dictator, but hes not stupid.
He wanted to be in power, so he definately must have known the WMD would seal his fate in the instant when discovered and even if he would have produced WMD, what could he have done with those?
"I have alot of scary WMD, but if I use it, they'll instantly bust my bellybutton for that" - makes sense dont you think?
Sure he planned onto smuggling oil as well, how else could he kept his status well?
He for surely has also counted on oil smuggling being too minor issue to be used against his dictatorship, which it really is if thinks of it - if caught pants down, he could still have walked away from it.
It's amazing what you can find out when you view a country under a microscope.
Some gets away with bigger things and some are widely critisized for smaller things.
-
You said:
"This way americans are guilty of starting a war based on lies and broken alot of laws it has signed.
Human right laws comes to my mind as the first thing which was violated."
I'm asking which human rights laws were violated, and which "laws it has signed" have we broken?
-
martlet,
and like I said, if you read, I don't know exact law #'s nor have I put those up, since it really isn't my heart business.
Common sense is allowed.
I'm sure you've heard of the guantanamo things and how those breaks more than just one human right laws.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
martlet,
and like I said, if you read, I don't know exact law #'s nor have I put those up, since it really isn't my heart business.
Common sense is allowed.
I'm sure you've heard of the guantanamo things and how those breaks more than just one human right laws.
You keep making that claim. When are you going to tell me which human rights laws are being broken?
Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it be accepted as fact.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it be accepted as fact.
Why not? It works in the US.. from both sides.
-
So, anyone find any WMDs lately?
Did they find another hub-cap or screw-driver or thingamajic that 'might' have been used to create something? No?
ps) Ooooh! Nice slap there, Munkil! That's one line to savior for ages.
-
What did I say about ignorance? :rolleyes:
It's amazing if this martlet guy hasn't heard of whats wrong with the guantamo (sp) prisoners jurisdical treatment.
-> human rights violations.
1. they won't be told what they're exactly accused of
2. they haven't been appointed a lawyer
3. they're being held in there for extended periods of time without either of the two - if not guilty, they're only released after their 'case' has been throughoutly investigated by the goverment, which can take several months and over years.
There is no guarantees of people not guilty being sentenced or executed and that is not helped by weak to non-existant defence.
and so on for the beginners...
Perhaps Martlet needs to visit guantamo as a more permanent visitor, maybe then he will see whats wrong, instead of requiring rather extended information of the laws broken.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-110703-action-eng
"Most of the detainees have been held for more than a year in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They have not had access to any court, to legal counsel, or visits from relatives. They have been subject to repeated interrogations and confinement to small cells for up to 24 hours a day with minimal opportunity for exercise."
"are suspected by US authorities of being members of al-Qa'ida or "otherwise involved in terrorism", and can be held indefinitely without charge or trial, or charged and brought in front of a military commission consisting of military officers appointed by the executive. There will be severe restrictions on their right to counsel of choice and to an effective defence, and if convicted they could be subject to the death penalty and would have no right of appeal to any court."
How many points do you see wrong?
Perhaps it's ok in your country nowadays, who knows...?
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Why not? It works in the US.. from both sides.
That's gonna leave a mark...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
She broke a bunch of laws, and now she is gonna get punished. Do I even have to mention the moral hypocrisy of this so called "peace" and "human rights" activist going abroad to protect the regime of Saddam Hussein?
All of a sudden it's a moral question, although when Reagan was protecting Saddam's regime for years it was just good economics.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
What did I say about ignorance? :rolleyes:
It's amazing if this martlet guy hasn't heard of whats wrong with the guantamo (sp) prisoners jurisdical treatment.
-> human rights violations.
1. they won't be told what they're exactly accused of
2. they haven't been appointed a lawyer
3. they're being held in there for extended periods of time without either of the two - if not guilty, they're only released after their 'case' has been throughoutly investigated by the goverment, which can take several months and over years.
There is no guarantees of people not guilty being sentenced or executed and that is not helped by weak to non-existant defence.
and so on for the beginners...
Perhaps Martlet needs to visit guantamo as a more permanent visitor, maybe then he will see whats wrong, instead of requiring rather extended information of the laws broken.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-110703-action-eng
"Most of the detainees have been held for more than a year in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They have not had access to any court, to legal counsel, or visits from relatives. They have been subject to repeated interrogations and confinement to small cells for up to 24 hours a day with minimal opportunity for exercise."
"are suspected by US authorities of being members of al-Qa'ida or "otherwise involved in terrorism", and can be held indefinitely without charge or trial, or charged and brought in front of a military commission consisting of military officers appointed by the executive. There will be severe restrictions on their right to counsel of choice and to an effective defence, and if convicted they could be subject to the death penalty and would have no right of appeal to any court."
How many points do you see wrong?
Perhaps it's ok in your country nowadays, who knows...?
I HAVE been to Guantanamo Bay, have you?
You love to dance, don't you? You bounce around without answering the question. Am I speaking at a reading level that is too high for you?
WHAT HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN?
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Why not? It works in the US.. from both sides.
Really? Give me an example.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Really? Give me an example.
Okay, Right wing example.
WMD's in IRAQ. So far, no basis in fact other than some faked intelligence report. Was accepted as fact long enough to send us to war in Iraq.
Okay Left wing example.
Clinton had plenty of things he told the US that was accepted, later it turned out it wasn't true. I'm going to go into specific example's, but we all know they are here. We could go with he didn't have sexual relations. Was accepted as fact until he admitted recieving oral sex. Everything always goes back to that.
You see the reason is, 95% of American's* believe anything their political affiliation tells them too with blind loyalty out of hatred for the other party. A good 20%* believe everything everyone tells them.
*Reflect's personal opinion on % no formal stuides given.
-
Originally posted by Torque
All of a sudden it's a moral question, although when Reagan was protecting Saddam's regime for years it was just good economics.
Nice try....compare apples to apples, or does convenience drive your arguments?:)
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Okay, Right wing example.
WMD's in IRAQ. So far, no basis in fact other than some faked intelligence report. Was accepted as fact long enough to send us to war in Iraq.
Okay Left wing example.
Clinton had plenty of things he told the US that was accepted, later it turned out it wasn't true. I'm going to go into specific example's, but we all know they are here. We could go with he didn't have sexual relations. Was accepted as fact until he admitted recieving oral sex. Everything always goes back to that.
You see the reason is, 95% of American's* believe anything their political affiliation tells them too with blind loyalty out of hatred for the other party. A good 20%* believe everything everyone tells them.
*Reflect's personal opinion on % no formal stuides given.
Apparently, you need to take the same remedial English course before you start flapping your gums. I said "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it be accepted as fact. "
In your first example, they specifically said "WMD". The accusation may or may not turn out to be wrong, but it was a direct accusation and had a basis.
Your second example wasn't an accusation at all. It was a lie in defense of an accusation.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Apparently, you need to take the same remedial English course before you start flapping your gums. I said "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it be accepted as fact. "
In your first example, they specifically said "WMD". The accusation may or may not turn out to be wrong, but it was a direct accusation and had a basis.
Your second example wasn't an accusation at all. It was a lie in defense of an accusation.
Okay.. here we go. Let's look at your quote, "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it accepted as fact" Okay exaclty what I thought it said. I said WMD in Iraq, there was no proof, therefore it was an accusation. Following me? Okay after the accusation, we were continually goaded into accepting it as fact after the SotU speech. We eventually sent out troops to Iraq, in lieu of weapons inspectors reporting that there were no WMD, to find the WMD. This is an obvious case of this happening.
Point to me where you said "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it accepted as fact until Jesus comes back and sends you all to hell" There was no time restraint. It's been proven people believed it as fact. If we find WMD then it is a fact, until then it's still just an accusation.
I admit I had a hard time finding an example for the Left wing, probably because I'm more left wing in my views. But that alone prove's my point, because I know everything I've been told by the Left wing isn't fact, but I cannot come up with a specific example because I believed it. I'm sure you could come up with many.
-
Okay exaclty what I thought it said. I said WMD in Iraq, there was no proof, therefore it was an accusation. -Munkii
Not really. After Gulf War 1 Iraq had to report all its weapons and then show that they had been destroyed. Iraq could not (would not) provide evidence of the destruction of many of the items listed in their own report and thus were actually in violation of the cease fire (Gulf War 1 never truly ended, it just paused if you read the wording.)
And similar to what Lazs once stated, we cannot locate Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussein but does that mean they do not exist? Biological agents can hide in a hole indefinitely but people cannot. We may never find the missing WMD's, but that does not mean they do not exist and again, the burdeon of proof was on Iraq to show they had been destroyed which they never did. I wish people would wise up to that.
-
Originally posted by Puke
Not really. After Gulf War 1 Iraq had to report all its weapons and then show that they had been destroyed. Iraq could not (would not) provide evidence of the destruction of many of the items listed in their own report and thus were actually in violation of the cease fire (Gulf War 1 never truly ended, it just paused if you read the wording.)
And similar to what Lazs once stated, we cannot locate Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussein but does that mean they do not exist? Biological agents can hide in a hole indefinitely but people cannot. We may never find the missing WMD's, but that does not mean they do not exist and again, the burdeon of proof was on Iraq to show they had been destroyed which they never did. I wish people would wise up to that.
Well Gulf War 1 wasn't a Gulf War if you read the wording, but that's not the point. I agreed that Sadam had WMD, I also agree that he may still and probably does have WMD, but have we found any yet? No, therefore it was an accusation used to send us into battle that was accepted as fact. The burden of proof was on Iraq to show they had been destroyed yes, but now the burden of proof is on us to show they weren't, we attacked him not the other way around this time. Really though, I guess we don't need to justify any of our actions do we? I've never agreed on the war on Iraq on any level, not because I think war is wrong, but I don't like the timing of it and I don't like looking like the aggressor.
*pardon any spelling mistakes and the huge paragraph but I'm typing with one hand and eating with the other.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Okay.. here we go. Let's look at your quote, "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it accepted as fact" Okay exaclty what I thought it said. I said WMD in Iraq, there was no proof, therefore it was an accusation. Following me? Okay after the accusation, we were continually goaded into accepting it as fact after the SotU speech. We eventually sent out troops to Iraq, in lieu of weapons inspectors reporting that there were no WMD, to find the WMD. This is an obvious case of this happening.
Point to me where you said "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it accepted as fact until Jesus comes back and sends you all to hell" There was no time restraint. It's been proven people believed it as fact. If we find WMD then it is a fact, until then it's still just an accusation.
I admit I had a hard time finding an example for the Left wing, probably because I'm more left wing in my views. But that alone prove's my point, because I know everything I've been told by the Left wing isn't fact, but I cannot come up with a specific example because I believed it. I'm sure you could come up with many.
WMD was an accusation, correct. However, it had basis, as Puke said below. It was also based on fact.
Fact=Iraq had WMD.
Fact=They were required to show proof of their destruction or use.
Fact=They didn't.
Whether or not they have WMD is irrelevant, the accusation had a basis.
Care to try again, or was your comment just a "hit and run"?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I HAVE been to Guantanamo Bay, have you?
You love to dance, don't you? You bounce around without answering the question. Am I speaking at a reading level that is too high for you?
WHAT HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN?
I obviously meant about being there as a prisoner, not as a visitor of some kind.
I doubt you were held there against your will and cuffed and chained at times.
You're getting rather childish, mr. troll.
-
It appears all the woman did was visit the country. She did not give any help or cooperation to the government, etc. By being a "human shield" she did not affect US plans in the least, so the pretext under which she was there is irrelevant to the charges against her.
An intersting implication comes to my mind. A government claims that a regime is evil and deserves punishment, but the citisens are forbidden under threat of punishment to visit that country and see for themselves if the information is correct.
The only people who can have first-hand information are now intelligence and special forces operatives in employ of teh government.
Sounds like Iron Curtain to me.
Should the citizens have a right to independently verify what their government is telling them? It would have come in handy at times.
miko
-
Originally posted by Martlet
WMD was an accusation, correct. However, it had basis, as Puke said below. It was also based on fact.
Fact=Iraq had WMD.
Fact=They were required to show proof of their destruction or use.
Fact=They didn't.
Whether or not they have WMD is irrelevant, the accusation had a basis.
Care to try again, or was your comment just a "hit and run"?
Okay, but we were told they were actively producing WMD, and that they were an immediate threat to the US. Again it has not been founded, but was accepted as fact. Your of course going to disagree with this. This is why political debate's never work. Candidate's never win or lose based on issue's they win based on voter turn out.
The statement I made earlier remain's in my mind true.. does it make it a fact? No it's a personal opinion that you are trying to argue with me as a fact. Neither of us will win, although I'm sure you will claim to because I'm "giving up". Truth of the matter is neither of us will ever give up ground because the whole issue is one of wording.
I'm not going to bring up issues for us to argue about when neither of us will give in. We will either argue or agree, there will be no concessions made on either side. Neither of us are trying to learn from the other we are just spewing forth things that have been told to us by our political affiliations. Arguing politics is pointless. Everyone does it to change the other and it always just turns into a name calling match with never any "enlightenment occuring". I fully expect you to see this as a win for your side, and expect the gloating to commence. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Okay, but we were told they were actively producing WMD, and that they were an immediate threat to the US. Again it has not been founded, but was accepted as fact. Your of course going to disagree with this. This is why political debate's never work. Candidate's never win or lose based on issue's they win based on voter turn out.
The statement I made earlier remain's in my mind true.. does it make it a fact? No it's a personal opinion that you are trying to argue with me as a fact. Neither of us will win, although I'm sure you will claim to because I'm "giving up". Truth of the matter is neither of us will ever give up ground because the whole issue is one of wording.
I'm not going to bring up issues for us to argue about when neither of us will give in. We will either argue or agree, there will be no concessions made on either side. Neither of us are trying to learn from the other we are just spewing forth things that have been told to us by our political affiliations. Arguing politics is pointless. Everyone does it to change the other and it always just turns into a name calling match with never any "enlightenment occuring". I fully expect you to see this as a win for your side, and expect the gloating to commence. :rolleyes:
See, I don't think this is a "win", because I don't think you fully understand what I'm trying to say. The origin of my part in this discussion was that Fishu made the claim that the US was violating civil rights laws. I asked for a specific example of which law was being broken, and how. He couldn't provide it, so I said it was an accusation without basis. You said both sides do that here in the US, too, so I asked for examples.
Whether or not I agree with the presence of WMD is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that when the accusation of WMD was made, we had a basis for doing so in the form of past experiences and intelligence sources. Regardless of the accuracy of those sources, they did provide a basis for our accusations. So it isn't that I disagree with your points, but that the discussion has gone into a place that is no longer relevant to my question.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I obviously meant about being there as a prisoner, not as a visitor of some kind.
I doubt you were held there against your will and cuffed and chained at times.
You're getting rather childish, mr. troll.
Childish? We are getting ready to hit page 3 and you still have yet to validate your accusation. I'm coming to the conclusion that you are just regurgitating what you hear your mother say, and can't back it up. Oddly, that is exactly what you accuse us of doing.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
See, I don't think this is a "win", because I don't think you fully understand what I'm trying to say. The origin of my part in this discussion was that Fishu made the claim that the US was violating civil rights laws. I asked for a specific example of which law was being broken, and how. He couldn't provide it, so I said it was an accusation without basis. You said both sides do that here in the US, too, so I asked for examples.
The afghan POWs. If I remember correctly.
According to the US they were no POWs. The rights granted to POWs were not applied to them (e.g. not to show them for public amusement). So they were civilians. But they were not treated as civilians either.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
The afghan POWs. If I remember correctly.
According to the US they were no POWs. The rights granted to POWs were not applied to them (e.g. not to show them for public amusement). So they were civilians. But they were not treated as civilians either.
And what human rights laws are being broken in GTMO?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I HAVE been to Guantanamo Bay, have you?
You love to dance, don't you? You bounce around without answering the question. Am I speaking at a reading level that is too high for you?
WHAT HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN?
Could you remind me the legal status of Guantanamo bay prisonners please ?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
And what human rights laws are being broken in GTMO?
Can count 3 at least.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Can count 3 at least.
That's great. You're the 3rd person to say that. However, not one of you has named one.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
That's great. You're the 3rd person to say that. However, not one of you has named one.
Yes, just because I don't want to learn you something.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Yes, just because I don't want to learn you something.
Uh huh, or because you're too busy thinking up new bomb jokes for your pilots.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Free Faith Fippinger !!
Free Faith Fippinger !!
Free Faith Fippinger !!
catchy ain't it :)
-
the thought that american soldiers have never tortured to death publicly with the aproval of the white house. anyone ever.
and needless to say they have never detained people on a forign property of the usa expressly to avoid the constitutions protections.
if find this perversion really the worst of all.
and yea i have been to quantanamo. ******* of the world.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Uh huh, or because you're too busy thinking up new bomb jokes for your pilots.
Just because I don't want to educate a moron who insulted me and my country in the main.
To bad I wasn't having film running this day.
-
I hope all you guys can make it to the con next year:)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Just because I don't want to educate a moron who insulted me and my country in the main.
To bad I wasn't having film running this day.
Ahhh, more baseless accusations. I don't need to insult you or your country. The day to day happenings of each is insulting in and of themselves.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I hope all you guys can make it to the con next year:)
This, in itself, is enough to get me to order in advance. There are quite a few guys I'm quite anxious to meet.
-
*pardon any spelling mistakes and the huge paragraph but I'm typing with one hand and eating with the other.
Neat trick. I usually eat with my mouth.
:D
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Childish? We are getting ready to hit page 3 and you still have yet to validate your accusation. I'm coming to the conclusion that you are just regurgitating what you hear your mother say, and can't back it up. Oddly, that is exactly what you accuse us of doing.
I already did validate.
Besides, why do you require others to validate their arguments, while you throw those out of the thin air?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I already did validate.
Besides, why do you require others to validate their arguments, while you throw those out of the thin air?
You didn't validate crap. You said the U.S. was violating Human Rights Laws in Guantanamo Bay, and have yet to cite a single law that was being violated. How can I throw something out that you haven't provided?
-
Originally posted by Puke
Neat trick. I usually eat with my mouth.
:D
Really? I may have to try that sometime... maybe I could gain some weight. ;)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You didn't validate crap. You said the U.S. was violating Human Rights Laws in Guantanamo Bay, and have yet to cite a single law that was being violated. How can I throw something out that you haven't provided?
Whatever mister ignorant troller.
You're a typical case, which means your 'prove this prove that' thing isn't any brand new or great thing.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Whatever mister ignorant troller.
You're a typical case, which means your 'prove this prove that' thing isn't any brand new or great thing.
You calling me an "ignorant typical troller"? You spout off accusations, I ask you to back them up. You can't. Take your toys and go home until you can back up your mouth.
-
Martlet,
The proof stands right in this thread... what else do I need to do?
Perhaps conduct few months long study of it and then you would slam it down as insufficient?
been there, done that....
I'm tired of yanks retorting to "prove it up to decimal" - 'tactic'
...and when you turn back at them, they're spouting some crap somewhere else and providing not a slighest proof for any of their claims.
Somehow I doubt you'd be different, when it is so typical phenomen over at yankee boards.
Over the years, I haven't seen similar kind of behaviour employed so widely by any other nationalities than americans.
I'm still trying to figure out whys this.
This is only an observed thing over the years in several forums of several nationalities, not a downgrade of certain nationality.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Martlet,
The proof stands right in this thread... what else do I need to do?
Perhaps conduct few months long study of it and then you would slam it down as insufficient?
been there, done that....
I'm tired of yanks retorting to "prove it up to decimal" - 'tactic'
...and when you turn back at them, they're spouting some crap somewhere else and providing not a slighest proof for any of their claims.
Somehow I doubt you'd be different, when it is so typical phenomen over at yankee boards.
Over the years, I haven't seen similar kind of behaviour employed so widely by any other nationalities than americans.
I'm still trying to figure out whys this.
This is only an observed thing over the years in several forums of several nationalities, not a downgrade of certain nationality.
So, after failing to defend your accusations, you insult my nationality, then accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing. You're on a roll.
I've yet to make any accusations I haven't offered a basis for when asked. Your ignorance is coming through, and I find it amusing.
-
Yeah well and your proor providing yaddayaddas have insulted me.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Yeah well and your proor providing yaddayaddas have insulted me.
If I were you, I'd be more insulted by my failed education, than someone else's yaddas.
-
Martlet is right, you are coming off as the troll in this thread.
I would like to know what human rights laws have been broken as well.
-
It's simple guys: go look for yourself if you haven't done so.
I'm not your doggy.
If you two have failed to find out WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG with the procedures of guantanamo bay, it's not anymore my responsibility to help you out with it.
Any person who follows actual news and knows something about basic things with laws, knows it already, without having law §'s put up in front of their eyes.
I really wonder how deep and how much time you guys expect me to spend with a single forum thread, when you guys simply either play stupid or don't know anything about international laws or human right laws.
How about you two go read those things to educate yourself? that way you guys don't need to put others go through alot of trouble just because you guys haven't bothered to do it yourself.
Gee.. guess I need to start acting like me-knows-nothing as well and force others to dig out every bit of silly stuff for me or otherwise they'll be just throwing accusations out of the wind.
It'd be funny if I'd ask you guys about exact laws what something is breaking, what would you guys say? go find it everytime someone asks? yeah right, LOL.
Let's see what amnesty itself says.. didn't I already guide you to look at it?
Someones just lacks the initiave, but keeps the right to b1tch. *cough*hypocrits*cough*
Amnesty International believes that the Military Order should be revoked, and that any trial before the military commissions would contravene international standards:
The commissions will lack independence from the executive. The executive has the power to name who will be tried by the commissions, to appoint or to remove commission members, to pick the panel that will review convictions, and to make the final decision in any case.
There will be no right of appeal to an independent and impartial court established by law. The commissions can pass death sentences. Under international standards, governments must ensure particular respect for all fair trial rights in capital cases, including the right to appeal.
The right to counsel of choice and to an effective defence is restricted. Defendants will be provided with military lawyers and would have to pay to retain a civilian lawyer. Among other restrictions, civilian lawyers may not have access to classified information or closed proceedings. In addition, lawyer/client confidentiality is not guaranteed.
US citizens cannot be subject to the Military Order and will not be tried by military commission, even if accused of the same offence as a foreign national. International law prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality with regards to fair trial rights. The commissions would allow a lower standard of evidence than is admissible in ordinary courts
...oh yeah Martlet, you just dodged the amnesty post last time with some irrelevant flame.
No wonder you missed it, my bad..... (..nah)
So keen to require things from the others and to downplay them, but yet unable to do so yourself what you ask from the others.
You're not a great discusser, you obviously are trying to think of yourself.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It's simple guys: go look for yourself if you haven't done so.
I'm not your doggy.
If you two have failed to find out WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG with the procedures of guantanamo bay, it's not anymore my responsibility to help you out with it.
Any person who follows actual news and knows something about basic things with laws, knows it already, without having law §'s put up in front of their eyes.
I really wonder how deep and how much time you guys expect me to spend with a single forum thread, when you guys simply either play stupid or don't know anything about international laws or human right laws.
How about you two go read those things to educate yourself? that way you guys don't need to put others go through alot of trouble just because you guys haven't bothered to do it yourself.
Gee.. guess I need to start acting like me-knows-nothing as well and force others to dig out every bit of silly stuff for me or otherwise they'll be just throwing accusations out of the wind.
It'd be funny if I'd ask you guys about exact laws what something is breaking, what would you guys say? go find it everytime someone asks? yeah right, LOL.
Ahhh, falling back to the old "educate yourself" defense. Nice move. It doesn't work when you throw it out there after trying to defend your argument for several days.
The facts remain. You don't have a defense. You can't give me a single example, because there are none. There ARE NO HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS BEING BROKEN. Period.
I find it absurd you are angry at being held to your statement. If you are going to make accusations, have the facts to back them up.
Keep trying to promote your propaganda.
[edit]
...oh yeah Martlet, you just dodged the amnesty post last time with some irrelevant flame.
So keen to require things from the others and to downplay them, but yet unable to do so yourself what you ask from the others.
What post did I dodge with an irrelevant flame? Link please. When was I asked to provide proof, but didn't?
-
Fishu....guess what?
We don't give a rats arse what you think....get it?
The folks in the twin towers didn't ask for what they got....if we have to jail 300,000 suspected or suspicious individuals to protect our homeland, then that's what we will do. The likes of you and your other whiney European friends who think the same can kiss our all American butts.
I'de say that about sums it up for me.:)
-
Martlet,
What are you stirring there still? I already gave what you wanted.
When was I asked to provide proof, but didn't?
Since you put it that way.. how about proving Guantamo bay prison isn't in the violation of either human rights or international laws.
There hasn't been a need for that, since I'm not trying to be an arse and require stupid things from others.
But... as you like, I expect you to prove it and it's not enough said "it doesn't".
I'll forget common sense from now on with you.
Rude,
Nice to know the country of freedom (as far as freedom fries..?) is getting facistic signs on it.
This thing you speak of as 'protecting of homeland' isn't anymore just protecting, it's assaulting of others.
If it's so good to protect the homeland, how about rewriting the constitution and laws, to allow same treatment for the threats within america?
I mean, aren't those murderers and other criminals a bigger threat... every year they cause more harm to peace loving americans than the terrorists, with only one bad spike in there.
What about that american guy who blew up a goverment building and killed.. was it like in excess of couple hundred?
Can't remember anymore who or where in US it was..
Isn't it a reason to jail everyone for indefinite time if they're suspected of planning a murder or other serious crime?
-
My sport eats your sport for breakfast Rude.
I am not entirely sure what this has got to do with this thread, but after reading the incredible amount of incoherent stupidity by various posters, I found it important to add my own.
EuroDroids kick AmeriDroids arses too. And the T101 isn't a cyborg; a cyborg is basically a human being whose body has been taken over in whole or in part by electromechanical devices. The Terminator is clearly an android.
So, because of this semantic issue, EuroDroids (as in Kryten from Red Dwarf) win because the AmeriDroids (which are actually imported modified EuroDroids with bad accents) are disqualified.
I am glad I could help settle the issues in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Martlet,
What are you stirring there still? I already gave what you wanted.
Since you put it that way.. how about proving Guantamo bay prison isn't in the violation of either human rights or international laws.
There hasn't been a need for that, since I'm not trying to be an arse and require stupid things from others.
But... as you like, I expect you to prove it and it's not enough said "it doesn't".
I'll forget common sense from now on with you.
Rude,
Nice to know the country of freedom (as far as freedom fries..?) is getting facistic signs on it.
This thing you speak of as 'protecting of homeland' isn't anymore just protecting, it's assaulting of others.
If it's so good to protect the homeland, how about rewriting the constitution and laws, to allow same treatment for the threats within america?
I mean, aren't those murderers and other criminals a bigger threat... every year they cause more harm to peace loving americans than the terrorists, with only one bad spike in there.
What about that american guy who blew up a goverment building and killed.. was it like in excess of couple hundred?
Can't remember anymore who or where in US it was..
Isn't it a reason to jail everyone for indefinite time if they're suspected of planning a murder or other serious crime?
Bottom line is this....it's our business, not your's. You seem to think that your somehow involved in what we do....you're not. Tim is dead btw....another example of a practice which I'm sure you don't agree with, but again, we will do it our way and you can hate us until hell freezes over and it won't change a thing.
Oh....and don't think I have a personal problem with you as an individual, it's the mindset that irritates me. Ya see, I believe you're young.....when you're young, you're stupid....it's a fact. Now it's ok to be stupid when you're young, because you have not lived long enough to escape that tag, however, it's not ok to be stupid and then to think of yourself as smart....it's that combination, that breed posts like the ones you offer up.
A side note if I may.....some folks remain stupid all of their lives....you're not one of those folks are ya?:)
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Martlet,
What are you stirring there still? I already gave what you wanted.
Since you put it that way.. how about proving Guantamo bay prison isn't in the violation of either human rights or international laws.
There hasn't been a need for that, since I'm not trying to be an arse and require stupid things from others.
But... as you like, I expect you to prove it and it's not enough said "it doesn't".
I'll forget common sense from now on with you.
You made the accusation, moron.
Keep spouting your propaganda. As I stated before, you're full of crap. Every time you post you prove that. You STILL haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your accusations.
You keep making them, though. When are you going to show me evidence of this:
...oh yeah Martlet, you just dodged the amnesty post last time with some irrelevant flame.
as I also asked? Or is that just another baseless attack?
-
I'm waiting you to prove what was asked.
You're saying the guantamo bay camp does not violate the laws, well.. prove it.
So far it looks like I've proven more than you have.
Therefore I have less need to prove than you do.
You haven't told me one thing how theres no laws violated, but asked more than enough from me.
So you better get better backing on your argument, since you're on the weaker side as you haven't proven anything, buddy.
Or will you perhaps admit to not giving proofs when asked to?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I'm waiting you to prove what was asked.
You're saying the guantamo bay camp does not violate the laws, well.. prove it.
So far it looks like I've proven more than you have.
Therefore I have less need to prove than you do.
You haven't told me one thing how theres no laws violated, but asked more than enough from me.
So you better get better backing on your argument, since you're on the weaker side as you haven't proven anything, buddy.
Or will you perhaps admit to not giving proofs when asked to?
You really are retarded. I'm confident of that, now. It's apparent that you feel if you can't defend your position, it's ok to skip over it and ask a question of your own.
Military Order of 13November2001 declares those held in Guantanamo Bay "illegal combatants".
(f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.
(c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment;
(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba -- Locked inside like Army MPs, 25 members of Congress inspected cellblocks at Camp X-Ray Friday and hailed conditions for suspected al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. (Miami Herald)
So, I'm still either waiting for your proof otherwise, or (more likely) you to spout off again without defending your position.
I'm also still waiting for an answer to the OTHER accusation you through out, totally unfounded. I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
-
I'm still waiting you to prove on your behalf how the guantanamo bay camp doesn't break the human right or international laws.
I don't give a dime for how Bush administration has altered the law recently.
the "illegal combatants" term is already rather deciptive
and retarded? haha, I'm just acting like you are.
-
Note how terribly they are being treated.
Q. There have been a number of concerns raised about the treatment of the captives we hold in Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba. Are we incarcerating people inappropriately?
A. The predictable media blitz surrounding American-held captives at Guantanamo Bay has required the Department of Defense to vigorously defend security procedures at that military facility against a flurry of criticism by European governments and human rights groups.
To date, 158 detainees are being held at the naval base "Gitmo" (Note: U.S. presence there dates back to the Spanish-American War in the summer of 1898. For the history of the base, see http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/history.htm) Additional transfers have been suspended while construction crews work around the clock to expand permanent facilities that will eventually house as many as 2,000 prisoners.
Due to religious considerations, it probably was a mistake to have shaved the detainees prior to transfer in an effort to cleanse them of lice. The Pentagon certainly regrets releasing one picture taken by a Navy photographer as the first group of detainees arrived at the base Jan. 11.
However, I think the "outcry" is unfounded and primarily the result of the notorious British tabloids, Islamic groups in London, and political critics that have specific agendas to pursue. I think the majority of the American public, and the world, understands that inhumane treatment of prisoners is not the American way. The Navy and Marine Corps personnel assigned to Camp X-Ray are a highly trained, professional security police force and they are doing a good job.
The terrorist captives are in an environment that appropriately demands maximum security. These people are as dangerous as any criminal we hold in other maximum-security prisons. They are receiving exercise periods, warm showers, toiletries, water, clean clothes, blankets, three meals a day, prayer mats, excellent medical care, writing materials and private visits from the Red Cross. A Navy Muslim chaplain is available to minister to their religious needs if requested, and calls to prayers are broadcast over the camp PA system, with a sign indicating the direction of Mecca.
No one who has personally visited the camp, to include human-rights monitors from the International Committee of the Red Cross and a British team of investigators, has reported any complaints of inhumane treatment. A group of U.S. senators will visit the camp this week to report their findings to the public.
I might also note that if roles were reversed, if any U.S. soldiers had been captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, I believe the potential for inhumane treatment of those prisoners would have been quite high.
Q. Some European governments and human rights groups are faulting the United States for not classifying the Afghan war captives at "Camp X-Ray" in Guantanamo as Prisoners of War, with full rights under the Geneva Convention. If this is a war on terrorism and we have captured terrorists, shouldn't they be designated Prisoners of War (POWs)?
A. U.S. officials say that all are being treated as though Geneva standards apply.
The strategy, rules and procedures that the U.S. will follow will be announced within a week. The decisions regarding the classification of the detainees will have significant ramifications concerning policies of prosecution.
The Bush administration has been very careful to refer to the prisoners as "unlawful combatants" or "battlefield detainees," and not prisoners of war. This is a complicated issue that has the Justice, State and Defense departments submitting recommendations concerning legal precedents for prosecuting and holding suspected terrorists. General Counsel William Hayes and a team of military attorneys have been at Guantanamo Bay to get a better understanding of the demographics of the detainees.
The interrogations are on-going, with the hope that more information will be obtained that can save innocent lives. For instance, it was reported this week that a captive senior al Qaeda leader provided information about an alleged plot to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Yemen with a truck bomb. This led to a decision to close the embassy consular office and tighten security around the facility. Information learned in Afghanistan has helped thwart possible attacks in Singapore and Bosnia. Under international law, POWs are required to divulge no more than basic information such as their name, rank, identification number and date of birth. In our quest for more information from these terrorists, I think the hesitancy to immediately label all detainees POWs and intentionally limit our ongoing interrogations is understandable.
U.S. officials say that the captives are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they were bands of people and not an organized military activity. I think this applies more appropriately to al Qaeda detainees than Taliban fighters. Under the third Geneva Convention, POWs may only be tried in the same courts and according to the same rules as soldiers of the country that is holding the prisoners. The administration is trying to determine if that is the optimum procedure to follow in all cases, and I don't think it is. It would mean that al Qaeda suspects could not be tried in any special military tribunal, but only by regular U.S. military courts using the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That would give the prisoners a right to appeal possibly all the way up to the Supreme Court.
American al Qaeda prisoner Sulayman Al-Lindh a.k.a. Abdul Hamid, (the media uses the name John Walker Lindh) has just arrived in the Alexandria, Va., county jail to face criminal charges in a civil court, and will have all rights and privileges of a United States citizen.
POWs would normally be returned home at the end of active hostilities; to me, it is unclear what would constitute an end to the war on terrorism. Further, in some cases returning detainees to their countries could result in their severe mistreatment or death, which would be in violation of international law.
Releasing the names of the captives is also troublesome. Many will not divulge their true names; many have aliases. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a point when he said, "If people know who is in custody, then they know what kind of information conceivably might be available to us."
This is new, murky, unchartered territory for everyone. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said the detainees are being held for questioning and some will be sent to tribunals, some to criminal courts, some back to their home countries. A lot of the peculiarities of detaining terrorists were simply never envisioned when the Geneva Convention was drawn up. It will be a case-by-case basis for each detainee as hard decisions are made, and procedures and policies for prosecution are announced next week.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I'm still waiting you to prove on your behalf how the guantanamo bay camp doesn't break the human right or international laws.
I don't give a dime for how Bush administration has altered the law recently.
the "illegal combatants" term is already rather deciptive
and retarded? haha, I'm just acting like you are.
Perhaps you should READ my posts. The Miami Herald reported that inspectors determined the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay were being well treated.
Do you have any intention of offering a basis for YOUR accusations?
Acting like I am? I'll believe you are even ATTEMPTING to act like I am when you offer the slightest bit of evidence to support any of the 3 claims you've made in this thread.
-
Martlet,
It's not about the treatment alone.
Didn't I say and quote enough things to make that clear?
What if some.. say.. 50000 americans would be jailed for indefinite time for being suspected of being involved in the act or planning of crime.
Would you say: "its for the protection of our country" or scream about violation of constitution?
Anyway, I got what I wanted out of you... no proofs and acting towards you like you do with the others, caused you to call me a retard :D
Doesn't that kind of make you a retard.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Martlet,
It's not about the treatment alone.
Didn't I say and quote enough things to make that clear?
What if some.. say.. 50000 americans would be jailed for indefinite time for being suspected of being involved in the act or planning of crime.
Would you say: "its for the protection of our country" or scream about violation of constitution?
Anyway, I got what I wanted out of you... no proofs and acting towards you like you do with the others, caused you to call me a retard :D
Doesn't that kind of make you a retard.... :rolleyes:
blah blah blah. Let me know when you come up with the slightest evidence to back up any of your 3 accusations. Until then, I'm comfortable in my knowlege that you ARE either retarded, or just the product of a failed education.
-
Hehe, I've done quite enough for the evidence for a person who cannot personally go dig up the archives.
You again are raising all the time the need for proof beyond impossible levels for anyone but a professional investigator.
Do you get your kicks by asking for impossible high level proof from regular forum posters?
Seems like only about a hundred page report of that how the prisoners sent to guantamo bay aren't handled according to the human right and international laws would make you change your mind.. if even that, then you would possibly retort to Bush administration rulings.
First of all, it's not all about that are they treated according to laws IN the guantamo bay, but how their jurisdical rights and prisoner status is handled.
I've proven enough so far, so you can get a hike already.
Unless you come back with the proves I've asked.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Hehe, I've done quite enough for the evidence for a person who cannot personally go dig up the archives.
You again are raising all the time the need for proof beyond impossible levels for anyone but a professional investigator.
Do you get your kicks by asking for impossible high level proof from regular forum posters?
Seems like only about a hundred page report of that how the prisoners sent to guantamo bay aren't handled according to the human right and international laws would make you change your mind.. if even that, then you would possibly retort to Bush administration rulings.
First of all, it's not all about that are they treated according to laws IN the guantamo bay, but how their jurisdical rights and prisoner status is handled.
I've proven enough so far, so you can get a hike already.
Unless you come back with the proves I've asked.
Can you not read? Do you think pretending I didn't post that article from the Herald means it didn't exist?
I'm not asking for a 100 page report. I'm asking for one-single-bit-of-evidence on the THREE accusations you made.
-
I have to say that I often cruise the O'Club posts just to see what the argument of the day is, and rarely, if ever, feel the need to add my two cents.
The previous posts contained (a) an assertion of the violation of human rights laws at Gitmo and (b) a request for evidence of which human rights laws are being violated.
I offer up the following as evidence of laws which may have been, or continue to be, violated at Gitmo (with my own thoughts in brackets):
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
[I would suggest that any prisoner, whether at Gitmo or otherwise, has a right to hear his or her grievances heard by a court. This is a fundamental principle of Western legal systems, also know as habeas corpus. The Gitmo visitors have no such right.]
"Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
[Note the reference to no person being held to answer for a crime without the indictment of a grand jury. The reference to due process is also interesting. The Gitmo prisoners have not, to my knowledge, been indicted by one or more grand juries.]
"Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
[Interesting references to (a) a right to a speedy trial (they have been in Gitmo since for, what, 18 months now, give or take?), (b) a right to an impartial jury "of the state....wherein the crime shall have been committed" (What would this be? Afghanistan?Actually, my view would be New York or the District of Columbia. Either way, I don't think a military tribunal would meet the requirement), (c) a right to be advised of the nature of the offence in question, (d) the right to face one's accusers and (e) the right to counsel.]
Just my humble contribution to a reasonable discussion amongst ladies and gentlemen.
-
Unfortunately for your argument, they are "illegal combatants", not POWs or citizens.
That argument was tried in court, and found to be invalid.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I find it absurd you are angry at being held to your statement. If you are going to make accusations, have the facts to back them up.
I strongly agree.
The US should have really made sure they had facts about the existance of WMDs before attacking Iraq, instead of acting based on accusations.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
I strongly agree.
The US should have really made sure they had facts about the existance of WMDs before attacking Iraq, instead of acting based on accusations.
Next time, read the whole thread. It will keep you from looking foolish.
-
I've heard that before, so I see your point, but I would ask that you (or someone else) clarify a couple of things for me.
1. Not being a scholar of the U.S. Constitution, does it afford protection to all people who are prosecuted by the U.S Government, or only citizens (whether born in the U.S. or naturalized)? For example, if a Finnish tourist is visiting New York and commits a crime (a "regular crime" i.e., theft), can the U.S. Government lock him or her up and throw away the key, so to speak, without regard to the Constitution?
2. Who in the U.S. Government has the authority to label someone an illegal combatant? My understanding is that the President has the authority, but that he can delegate it to Ashcroft or Rumsfield. Regardless of who holds the authority, could you please point me to the act of Congress which authorized such labelling. Was whathisname (the "American Taliban") an illegal combatant?
3. Which argument was found invalid? That they may be POWs or that the Constitution doesn't apply in these circumstances? If you have the citation for the judgment I would find it an interesting read.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
I've heard that before, so I see your point, but I would ask that you (or someone else) clarify a couple of things for me.
1. Not being a scholar of the U.S. Constitution, does it afford protection to all people who are prosecuted by the U.S Government, or only citizens (whether born in the U.S. or naturalized)? For example, if a Finnish tourist is visiting New York and commits a crime (a "regular crime" i.e., theft), can the U.S. Government lock him or her up and throw away the key, so to speak, without regard to the Constitution?
2. Who in the U.S. Government has the authority to label someone an illegal combatant? My understanding is that the President has the authority, but that he can delegate it to Ashcroft or Rumsfield. Regardless of who holds the authority, could you please point me to the act of Congress which authorized such labelling. Was whathisname (the "American Taliban") an illegal combatant?
3. Which argument was found invalid? That they may be POWs or that the Constitution doesn't apply in these circumstances? If you have the citation for the judgment I would find it an interesting read.
1. not on American soil
2. The President did, with a Military Order in November of 2001. Ultimately, everyone answers to the courts, though. The case of the handling of these prisoners was brought to court, and upheld. Care of the detainees is the responsibility of the Sec. of Defense, according to the MO. Walker was brought to the U.S. Once here, he is protected under our legal process. The same would apply to the detainees at Guantanamo, as far as I know.
3. http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wbur/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=425534 There have been several cases and appeals. Basically, but the US keeping them in Guantanamo, they are out of the jurisdiction of US courts. As sneaky as it may be, it has yet to be proven illegal.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Nice try....compare apples to apples, or does convenience drive your arguments?:)
People of faith often find it hard to see the apple for apples.
-
Thanks for the info, but call me dense:
1. The Gitmo guys are accused, I assume, of at least two things. (a) Plotting/being involved in/assisting, etc. terrorist strikes against U.S. interest, property and people. If so, NYC is the most infamous example (committed on U.S. soil), with the Cole also being infamous (attack against U.S. property). I struggle with the idea that the offences were not, therefore, on U.S. soil, but far be it from me to second guess the learned members of the U.S. judiciary.
(b) Fighting against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, and being captured. Not sure how one is not a POW in that case, but again I defer to the above mentioned learned members.
2. So the President has the authority to, in essence, say that these prisoners will be detained "offshore" such that the Constitution will not apply to them, which Constitution, if it did apply, might very well prohibit the President from making any such order? I have to tell you, that as "cute" as that is (and I credit the members of the Justice Department for (a) coming up with that and (b) defending it in court), IMHO it is an affront to everything that the United States tries to represent itself to the rest of the world.
At the end of the day, I really don't care what happens to any of these guys. But here's the thing...the greatest thing that the United States or any other Western democracy can export to the less developed and more violent parts of the world is our legal, political and judicial systems. So, when from the left side of our mouths we tell the world about "freedom", "due process", etc., but from the right side of our mouths we ignore, at times, the very principles that we are trying to export, I can understand how the people we are trying to convince think, rightly or wrongly, that we are all just full of ****.
The greatest thing that George Bush could have done with the Gitmo guys is to extend to them the very protections that are available to people in all other Western democracies. Having not done so, he missed a wonderful opportunity to show the world what America is all about. Instead, an outsider (particularly one with a grudge or fanatacism, whether religious or otherwise) might conclude, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the freedoms that all Americans all hold so dear are only available to Americans (the "All animals are equal...but some animals are more equal than others" issue).
The opportunity to teach a valuable lesson was lost. The United States had a chance to show the world that it extends its rights and freedoms not only to its best citizens, but also to its worst enemies, and could have lessened world hatred against it, even by a minute amount, by doing so.
If we are afraid to extend to our worst enemies the principles that we all hold so dear, how valuable can those principles really be.
-
How can anyone decide if POW status is granted or not? There isn't anything to decide, it's clearly defined in the genva convention.
"Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the 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.
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.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Those so-called unlawful combatants, how were they involved in the war? How were they fighting?
I could imagine that A6 probably fits to many of them.
If they were not fighting, but just capture because they were considered terrorists...
"Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
...
(b) Taking of hostages;"
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Thanks for the info, but call me dense:
1. The Gitmo guys are accused, I assume, of at least two things. (a) Plotting/being involved in/assisting, etc. terrorist strikes against U.S. interest, property and people. If so, NYC is the most infamous example (committed on U.S. soil), with the Cole also being infamous (attack against U.S. property). I struggle with the idea that the offences were not, therefore, on U.S. soil, but far be it from me to second guess the learned members of the U.S. judiciary.
(b) Fighting against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, and being captured. Not sure how one is not a POW in that case, but again I defer to the above mentioned learned members.
2. So the President has the authority to, in essence, say that these prisoners will be detained "offshore" such that the Constitution will not apply to them, which Constitution, if it did apply, might very well prohibit the President from making any such order? I have to tell you, that as "cute" as that is (and I credit the members of the Justice Department for (a) coming up with that and (b) defending it in court), IMHO it is an affront to everything that the United States tries to represent itself to the rest of the world.
At the end of the day, I really don't care what happens to any of these guys. But here's the thing...the greatest thing that the United States or any other Western democracy can export to the less developed and more violent parts of the world is our legal, political and judicial systems. So, when from the left side of our mouths we tell the world about "freedom", "due process", etc., but from the right side of our mouths we ignore, at times, the very principles that we are trying to export, I can understand how the people we are trying to convince think, rightly or wrongly, that we are all just full of ****.
The greatest thing that George Bush could have done with the Gitmo guys is to extend to them the very protections that are available to people in all other Western democracies. Having not done so, he missed a wonderful opportunity to show the world what America is all about. Instead, an outsider (particularly one with a grudge or fanatacism, whether religious or otherwise) might conclude, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the freedoms that all Americans all hold so dear are only available to Americans (the "All animals are equal...but some animals are more equal than others" issue).
The opportunity to teach a valuable lesson was lost. The United States had a chance to show the world that it extends its rights and freedoms not only to its best citizens, but also to its worst enemies, and could have lessened world hatred against it, even by a minute amount, by doing so.
If we are afraid to extend to our worst enemies the principles that we all hold so dear, how valuable can those principles really be.
Many of your points I completely agree with. Don't hold me to this, it's just my opion, but I would suspect that there are several important reasons this was done:
If they were to go into our legal system, interrogation is now out. Depositions and interviews are now taken while accompanied by a lawyer who advises him what he can or cannot say.
On the heels of 9/11, it was extremely important that we gathered as much information as necessary to head off future attacks, thus saving lives. Invoking the 5th obviously would hinder gathering this information.
You have to make a choice at some point. Do we put them into the legal system and forfeit much of the intelligence we stand to gain, or keep them in GTMO (which is without question in the best interests of national security) while thumbing our noses at the "spirit of the law".
In THIS case, I feel we did the right thing. I don't feel the biggest downside is the image we portray, but the precedent we set.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
How can anyone decide if POW status is granted or not? There isn't anything to decide, it's clearly defined in the genva convention.
It's also clearly defined in MO 11/2001, and upheld by the courts, that the Geneva Convention does not apply here.
-
Just like I told... now he retorts to recent law changes by the Bush administration.
Slowly becomes a good semi-facistic state.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It's also clearly defined in MO 11/2001, and upheld by the courts, that the Geneva Convention does not apply here.
Then that's a violation in itself.
"Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."
ps: it's not up to US courts to decide...
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Just like I told... now he retorts to recent law changes by the Bush administration.
Slowly becomes a good semi-facistic state.
Are you still here?
Got your 3 items of proof yet, or did you just pop your head in to spout off again?
-
Martlet,
Just laughing at your pathetism.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Then that's a violation in itself.
"Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."
ps: it's not up to US courts to decide...
The Geneva Convention applies to armed conflict between 2 High Contracting Parties. Terrorists don't fall under that category, sorry.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Martlet,
Just laughing at your pathetism.
You really crack me up. You just spit out what you hear. A true sheep. You don't have a single shred of evidence to back up ANY of what you spew.
You really should be reading textbooks to educate yourself, not AH BBS.
This topic has gone so far over your head already, that it will take 4 years of college for you to understand it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The Geneva Convention applies to armed conflict between 2 High Contracting Parties. Terrorists don't fall under that category, sorry.
I don't remember the geneva convention making exceptions for certain kind of citizens of high contracting countries.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You really should be reading textbooks to educate yourself, not AH BBS.
This topic has gone so far over your head already, that it will take 4 years of college for you to understand it.
I don't bother becoming a temporary guantamo bay specialist over a thread, where the opposing side will always find a new excuse to disqualify proofs and actually act stupid, as if they'd never heard of something. :rolleyes:
That is for those kids who tries to be in effect in the only place they can do so.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
I don't remember the geneva convention making exceptions for certain kind of citizens of high contracting countries.
"Illegal Combatants" do not fall under the Geneva Convention.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I don't bother becoming a temporary guantamo bay specialist over a thread, where the opposing side will always find a new excuse to disqualify proofs and actually act stupid, as if they'd never heard of something. :rolleyes:
That is for those kids who tries to be in effect in the only place they can do so.
You were "expert" enough to make accusations, doesn't it make sense that you would have information that caused you to form those accusations? Or do you just wake up in the morning with a freshly baked accusation bouncing around an otherwise empty head?
-
Martlet,
after the news, specialists, human right organizations etc. etc. have made the accusation... yes.. I do have a right to make the accusation.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Martlet,
after the news, specialists, human right organizations etc. etc. have made the accusation... yes.. I do have a right to make the accusation.
Great, what information do you base that accusation on?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
"Illegal Combatants" do not fall under the Geneva Convention.
As inhabitants of high contracting countries everyone does - one way or the other. Either as POW, or if not falling within the categories defined by the convention, not as POW. It's not whether the convention is applicable, but whether or not the convention secures certain rights for the so-called unlawful combatants.
You state they do not fall into one of the categories that are defined as POWs. Can you please explain a bit more clear what they did do wrong during their fighting to not be POWs after capture? Even civilians taking up arms are POWs. "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." How does this not apply to them?
-
Certain guidelines must be met to be afforded protection under the GC:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
They clearly don't meet those qualifications. Others are afforded protection too, but many of these are open to interpretation.
The one they come closest to fitting is the one you cited. To fall into that category, you would have to assume they "spontaneously picked up arms at the approach of the enemy without having had time to form regular units". Apparently, the detaining troops felt they didn't do that. Neither you nor I were there.
-
The opportunity to teach a valuable lesson was lost. The United States had a chance to show the world that it extends its rights and freedoms not only to its best citizens, but also to its worst enemies, and could have lessened world hatred against it, even by a minute amount, by doing so.
What a ridiculous statement.....why in the world would we extend rights which are specific to the citizens of a sovereign nation?
Your one of those one world goverment folks aren't ya?
-
-
Ya know what just dawned on me?
You guys spend so much time attacking the US and it's current leadership, yet I see no effort that even comes close to the same, extended towards the innocent who were killed on 9/11 or for that matter, anyone else who has been murdered or has suffered under the hands of our enemies.
Like I said before....I can respect Torque or dolf vader, because he lives here and may very well have served this nation in one capacity or another....you foreigners, you on the other hand offer tripe and venom....forcing your viewpoints on an audience that could care less what you have to say.
Think on this....all of this effort made on this bbs will yield you nothing....any of your opinions will bring about no change and nothing you can say or do will bring the US to alter it's efforts to protect our citizens and our property.
It's so obvious that you just can't stand the fact that we can and will do whatever we choose regarding our efforts against our enemies.
I wish we would just pull out of everywhere....it wouldn't take long for you to turn against yourselves....you have a history of that ya know.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Certain guidelines must be met to be afforded protection under the GC:
They clearly don't meet those qualifications. Others are afforded protection too, but many of these are open to interpretation.
The one they come closest to fitting is the one you cited. To fall into that category, you would have to assume they "spontaneously picked up arms at the approach of the enemy without having had time to form regular units". Apparently, the detaining troops felt they didn't do that. Neither you nor I were there.
Those certain points have to be met for those in category 2, if they were not civilians taking up arms spontaneously but organized resistance movements they would have to meet these criteria.
I'm not sure which you think they would not meet. They're surely commanded by someone (e.g. their local leader), they're easily recognizable by long beards on head covers, they were most probably carrying their weapons openly. Abiding to the customs of war is probably stretchable, but war allows pretty much.
Wasn't it decided that they were not going to be granted POW status right at the beginning of the war - before they were even captured?
-
The rest of the world, with notable execeptions, has NOT taken advantage of the the lesson of the U.S., but instead has allowed it's jealousy and religious extremists bring the world to where we are now.
I liken it to my children. I always want the best for them, and encourage them to act in a manner that they can be proud of, and which will make them a better person. In spite of this, sometimes they simply must be spanked, because their safety is more important than my feelings. So it is with the world; the unreasonable elements must be spanked, but in the adult world, that means people die, governments fall and shades of gray fade to white or black.
The most important thing to remember about current events is that the U.S. works in it's own interests, but responds with force only when it must, and reluctantly, then.
-
Rude,
Several dictators have been raised into power with the thoughts bit similar to yours.
Go figure.
Do you want America to become the 21st century nazi germany?
Surely not literally, but something horrible anyway.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I "think" you misunderstood what I was saying. This woman cannot argue HER case based upon "Oh I didn't know about those laws"...even if she wasn't TOLD what the rules were. The onus is always upon the accused to know what the law is before they break a law.
Ya and like any one person can know every law ...
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!
Judges don't even know ALL the laws..... Ignorance is the best excuse ..... US govement is down right Evil at times; .... I love my country, but there are some lame aholes in D.C.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Those certain points have to be met for those in category 2, if they were not civilians taking up arms spontaneously but organized resistance movements they would have to meet these criteria.
I'm not sure which you think they would not meet. They're surely commanded by someone (e.g. their local leader), they're easily recognizable by long beards on head covers, they were most probably carrying their weapons openly. Abiding to the customs of war is probably stretchable, but war allows pretty much.
Wasn't it decided that they were not going to be granted POW status right at the beginning of the war - before they were even captured?
Recognizable refers to differentiating them from the civilian population. Long beards and head covers doesn't cut it.
At the beginning of the war, it was decided to treat the action as two SEPERATE actions. One against Afghanistan, and one against al Queda. In the former action, the Geneva Convention applied. In the latter, for obvious reasons that I think we agree on, it didn't. Now, (and I'll concede that it is a stretch) they determined that members of the Taliban were not given protection under the GC.
This is where it gets to be more manipulation, and less black and white. The reasons the press secretary gave for not covering the Taliban, was because if violated factors which you and I have already discussed, and I think, agreed upon. He didn't give any further reasons, and clearly didn't cover the other subpoint under which it may be argued the Taliban is protected (Art. 4 1A).
I've seen several people argue that this also doesn't cover them. The most compelling argument I saw was that AFGHANISTAN is covered under the GC, it has no military. Afghanistan consists of warlords, and their fighters are loyal to them, not "Afghanistan". Thus, they clearly don't fall into that articles description. I know, this argument can have holes poked in it all day, but it really can't be shot down. Does it hold water? Legally, maybe. Morally, not really.
As I've stated before, do I think we are following the "spirit" of the law? No, but I think we are following the "letter" of it. I think that justice IS being served. The only thing I am uneasy about is the precedent this sets. It leaves a clear path for the situation to be repeated, only next time it may not be quite so justified morally.
-
The signs are to distinguish friend and foe. Long beards work nicely in this case. Civiliens can easily identified by not carrying weapons.
Each fighting unit within the area afghanistan, at the heart loyal to their country or just defending their home town, is part of the entity afghanistan. I could not find any hint in the GC that places restrictions on the military structure. It does not require centralized command to allow fighting units to receive orders from the government.
At least we do agree that the spirit of the law is clearly beeing ignored. To the letter or not, there's no judge to enforce it, no neutral ivestigation going to take place anyway.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Rude,
Several dictators have been raised into power with the thoughts bit similar to yours.
Go figure.
Do you want America to become the 21st century nazi germany?
Surely not literally, but something horrible anyway.
As is the case most often, you are over reacting to this as you have to much that the US has done. The vast majority of business associates, family members and friend that I speak with, have no fear of what you speak of notr do they fear our government like some would like them to.
Calm down and help us catch those who wish us harm like we did for you and yours this past century.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
The signs are to distinguish friend and foe. Long beards work nicely in this case. Civiliens can easily identified by not carrying weapons.
It is to distinguish between friend and foe, not in regards to nationality, but civilian/soldier. This is the very basis for identifying spies in WWII. If you weren't in uniform, you were considered a spy. Read it again. Several arguments supporting your view of the original argument can be found on the .net. All that bring this up disregarded it for the same reasons I did.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
-
Originally posted by Rude
As is the case most often, you are over reacting to this as you have to much that the US has done. The vast majority of business associates, family members and friend that I speak with, have no fear of what you speak of notr do they fear our government like some would like them to.
Calm down and help us catch those who wish us harm like we did for you and yours this past century.
People are never too concerned in general when the increased fear is met with increased protection.
Increased protection is only a concern if theres no justifiable fear.
Anyway.. it's been over 3 years of this century, which particular cases do you mean?
or if you mean the last century, what exactly then?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
People are never too concerned in general when the increased fear is met with increased protection.
Increased protection is only a concern if theres no justifiable fear.
Anyway.. it's been over 3 years of this century, which particular cases do you mean?
or if you mean the last century, what exactly then?
While you're out there asking for particular cases, how about answering the request that you provide some?
Oh wait, I'm sorry, I forgot. You'd rather just power up the pie hole.
-
I'm not asking for exact cases, purely wondering what has US done for Finland to catch some threats for it in the past century and which century is meant as people tends to make mistake with this and the last century.
Unlike you, I'm satisfied to know what particular cases he meant if he had those in mind as it sounded like, since I don't really have an idea.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I'm not asking for exact cases, purely wondering what has US done for Finland to catch some threats for it in the past century and which century is meant as people tends to make mistake with this and the last century.
Unlike you, I'm satisfied to know what particular cases he meant if he had those in mind as it sounded like, since I don't really have an idea.
Explain to me the difference between "exact" and "particular". Oh wait, you don't have to. You used them BOTH.
No wonder you can't give examples for your claims. You can't even keep your OWN story straight. Keep digging that hole, fishboy.
Originally posted by Fishu
Anyway.. it's been over 3 years of this century, which particular cases do you mean?
or if you mean the last century, what exactly then?
-
Martlet,
You're judging before Rude's reply.
I really didnt ask for as specific proves of things as you do.
I used word 'exactly', since I wasnt sure if he has anything in mind and if is, what about it is.. what else could I have said?
I see.. now it pops to my mind, I could've used the word 'particular' and used a longer more specific sentence, so nitpickers like you, wouldn't misunderstand it in any possible way.
Anyway.. it was all about curiocity, not about a need to prove something.
I want to know what he meant by saying so, if he had something PARTICULAR in his mind.
Now, please, mister grandmaster nitpicker of the neird class, get down on earth and use common sense, instead of downplaying everything you can.
Or maybe you could speak finnish for a change? oh yeah.. you don't know any finnish, however I do know some english, but you rather respect that by nitpicking every mistake in the grammar, which can be very easy.
How nice... hmm.. do you actually know what the word 'nice' means? of course you do.. how about being nice and sensible person for a change?
I really don't understand what kind of kicks you get for being an impossible nitpicker.
You don't have any understanding for the other person, instead you rather dis them all you can, even if you could use your common sense to think yourself, but you rather disregard that and use that as a way to attack the others, by playing more stupid than you really are, as if you wouldn't have a slighest suspicion or idea.
Thats really low, I'm not really here to discuss with persons of the kind.
Discussing with smart people is far better than with those who plays stupid on purpose to get the upperhand.
Only reason I can quickly find for it, is the age.
-
Here Fishu, I have created a simple form for you to fill out.
I, Fishu BELIEVE AMREEKA IS THE GREAT HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATING SATAN BECAUSE:
1.
2.
3.
-
I'm sorry, nationalist socialist Grunherz, but I don't quite agree with you of america being the great satan.
-
So I ask you to provide evidence for your claims, even provide a nice form and you call me a nazi?
lol
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So I ask you to provide evidence for your claims, even provide a nice form and you call me a nazi?
lol
I'm seeing a pattern. I asked him, and he insulted all Americans instead. I guess if you can't support your accusations, just toss out some insults.
-
Guys
Why are you even wasting your time? He has not provided even a vague example. He frankly is a joke. Why waste your time?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Guys
Why are you even wasting your time? He has not provided even a vague example. He frankly is a joke. Why waste your time?
Ill save fishu the trouble...
"You NAZI!" :D
-
LoL Grun
Your prolly right though. I am sure he is going to show up and call me names or make some remarks. He has no clue that this thread just made him look like the goof he is.
-
Yea he's showing himself to be pretty pathetic..
-
Originally posted by Fishu
People are never too concerned in general when the increased fear is met with increased protection.
Increased protection is only a concern if theres no justifiable fear.
Anyway.. it's been over 3 years of this century, which particular cases do you mean?
or if you mean the last century, what exactly then?
I'm only referring to the last year you've posted....I could go post examples of your posts regarding the US and it's policies, but I'm tired and don't have the time right now....it wouldn't change anything anyway.
Just ignore me.
-
why'd we let her back in???
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, more baseless accusations. I don't need to insult you or your country
ask your squaddie they perhaps have better memory than you.
-
Originally posted by straffo
ask your squaddie they perhaps have better memory than you.
Typical straffo post. Making claims, but not having the crap to back them up. -yawn-
-
Originally posted by Rude
What a ridiculous statement.....why in the world would we extend rights which are specific to the citizens of a sovereign nation?
Your one of those one world goverment folks aren't ya?
Actually, I'm a citizen of a country which extends the protections afforded by our Constitution to ALL people within our borders and to ALL people who commit offences against our nation's property and interests overseas. We see very little need to divide the world into "us" and "them".
We do not draw a distinction as to who is entitled to the inalienable rights available to all people based on where they may have been born or how lucky there may have been that the INS chose to process their citizenship application in a favourable manner.
The United States does not have a monopoly on determing what is moral, legal or just. All I meant to point out from my previous posts is that if the United States ever hopes to convince those who label it the Great Satan and insist on self-detonation to try and hurt the US that it is the land of "freedom", then it cannot say that such "freedom" ends 12 miles off of the US coast.
And since Gulf War II wasn't, apparently, really about WMD but rather about getting rid of a tyrannical dictator, what would you say to Saddam if he justified all of his actions on the basis of "Why would I extend rights to those in Iraq who I choose not to extend rights to?". Admittedly, a far more extreme example and not the best analogy, but following your logic, can a sovereign nation therefore choose to do whatever it wishes within its borders regardless of how immoral, unethical or illegal (in a universal sense) those actions are?
-
If you stand by your words what can I say ...
Coward should apply I thnik.
-
Martlet,
I have to say that I just caught up on some of your previous posts regarding the Geneva Convention, the choices made in the US not to follow it or the Bill of Rights, etc.
In re-reading them, I realized that while I may disagree with your conclusions, I cannot take issue with the manner in which you make your analysis and present your arguments. I give you a lot of credit for that, for believing what you believe in, and for backing it up in a thoughful and mature manner.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Martlet,
I have to say that I just caught up on some of your previous posts regarding the Geneva Convention, the choices made in the US not to follow it or the Bill of Rights, etc.
In re-reading them, I realized that while I may disagree with your conclusions, I cannot take issue with the manner in which you make your analysis and present your arguments. I give you a lot of credit for that, for believing what you believe in, and for backing it up in a thoughful and mature manner.
Thanks. I don't think anyone has called me thoughtful or mature before, though.
-
OK, I confess, it was just my attempt to kiss some a** so that you don't blow me out of the AH virutal skies :D
As an aside, is Martlet a reference to the UK version of the F4F?
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
OK, I confess, it was just my attempt to kiss some a** so that you don't blow me out of the AH virutal skies :D
As an aside, is Martlet a reference to the UK version of the F4F?
In a way. I learned of the name from my college days as a Delta Chi. The Martlet (bird) was a symbol on the fraternity crest. Then when I joined AH I thought that since it was also a plane, it could serve a dual purpose.
In the summer, my play time goes way down so you are fairly safe. Tour 41 (June) was the last time I played regularly.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Actually, I'm a citizen of a country which extends the protections afforded by our Constitution to ALL people within our borders and to ALL people who commit offences against our nation's property and interests overseas. We see very little need to divide the world into "us" and "them".
We do not draw a distinction as to who is entitled to the inalienable rights available to all people based on where they may have been born or how lucky there may have been that the INS chose to process their citizenship application in a favourable manner.
The United States does not have a monopoly on determing what is moral, legal or just. All I meant to point out from my previous posts is that if the United States ever hopes to convince those who label it the Great Satan and insist on self-detonation to try and hurt the US that it is the land of "freedom", then it cannot say that such "freedom" ends 12 miles off of the US coast.
And since Gulf War II wasn't, apparently, really about WMD but rather about getting rid of a tyrannical dictator, what would you say to Saddam if he justified all of his actions on the basis of "Why would I extend rights to those in Iraq who I choose not to extend rights to?". Admittedly, a far more extreme example and not the best analogy, but following your logic, can a sovereign nation therefore choose to do whatever it wishes within its borders regardless of how immoral, unethical or illegal (in a universal sense) those actions are?
Our freedom was not free...it was fought for.
As to what you allow in your country, we allow much the same...I don't agree with giving away freedoms to those who enter our country with ill intent and are prosecuted for crimes committed, but that's just me.
I find it amusing how those outside our borders feel the need to tell us how to live.....oh, btw, have you given up your guns yet?
-
I don't presume to tell others how to live their lives, whether they are my neighbours or whether they live in another country. My point was that, as a nation and society that most people look up to, the United States tends not to practice what it preaches when it comes to foreign affairs.
Freedom isn't something you earn. It is a God giving right inherent at birth. It is not granted to people at the whim of the state, the courts or the President. And the only way it can be taken away is in accordance with due process and the rule of law. You said it yourself...your freedom was fought for....precisely because King George decided to take it away from your forefathers what had been given to them by their mere existence. You may recall that your ancestors fought a civil war over not only state rights, but also over whether all men (and women) are free.
Either freedom is universal or it isn't. If US-type freedom is universal (in fact I recall your President making statements about how Gulf War II was about freedom), then it should be extended to everyone and only taken away in accordance with the very laws that you cherish so much and rely on so much to preserve "your" freedom. If it isn't, then the US should get off it's high horse and call it like it is. You have the bigger guns, so you can do what you want. The latter is fine with me too, but if that's the case, cut the rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy" and just say "We do it because we can".
As to my freedom, my founding fathers and the generations since fought to obtain and keep their freedom as well, both on the battlefield and off, as did many people in other democratic societies around this world. I have also served and continue to serve my country to preserve those freedoms and the ideals that we believe in. So sorry, but no monopoly for you on that either.
As to the whole gun thing...I'm sure your founding fathers specifically intended that every Joe Sixpack should have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon when they wrote the words:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In 1791 that made sense. In 2003, if you need a gun to protect your person and property, its probably time to consider moving to a new neighbourhood. Either way I don't care...if you want your guns that's fine. Just don't pretend that because other societies choose to limit the risks that their children will be gunned down at school or their co-workers will open fire on them that it makes those societies any "less free".
-
Fishu you are a fool Sir. Please on behalf of all those that occupy the sane World...PLEASE don't Breed.
Marlet WTG!
:D
-
And MJHerman... Stay in CanaDUH and stop trying to recite U.S. Amreica's Laws as if you live here. BTW how's the French laws doing in Quebec? Or are they speaking English errr American now?
OWN3D
:D
-
Originally posted by AWMac
And MJHerman... Stay in CanaDUH and stop trying to recite U.S. Amreica's Laws as if you live here. BTW how's the French laws doing in Quebec? Or are they speaking English errr American now?
OWN3D
:D
Ahhh, the much anticipated response to any type of discussion where someone disagrees with a point of view. The "STFU because we Americans know better than everyone else" combined with the standard form insult to anything that is not American. Combine that with a post to someone where the poster has no idea of my background, and then end result is that a reasonable discussion and exchange of opinions and viewpoints degenerates into embarrassing name calling. Nonetheless:
1. My law degree is hanging on the wall of my office. Where is yours hanging? Being called to the bar in the State of New York and the Province of Ontario obviously wouldn't qualify me to express MY opinion. Putting aside law degrees, I am sufficiently well read and take an interest in legal and historical matters enough to be able to express a viewpoint. Even you want to debate opinions fine...keep it civil and try and form a reasonable argument. I will read it and respond to it in kind, and we can agree to disagree if need be.
2. Since you asked, the laws which protect and preserve French in Quebec are doing just fine and are serving their purpose. Having grown up in Montreal, I benefitted from those laws even though my first language is English. Those laws forced me to learn a second language which, to this day, I read, write and speak fluently. Our country respects the cultures and customs of others, and chooses to incorporate them into our society, rather than insulting them. While it might be a pain in the a** for someone like you to visit a foreign country where the language is not "American", with an attitude like yours don't be surprised if most French Canadians (the majority of whom, by the way, speak French, English and often one or more additional languages), rather than switching to "American" to help you out, insist on continuing in French to your continued bewilderment.
Of course, you could always just say "Blame Canada" and resort to some sort of occupation to free us Canadians from all these ridiculous laws that we live under and "free" us from all of this oppression.
-
MJHerman... I was so surprised that your last articlate posting had not ended with "eh?".
During your last retoire in defending your Canadian birthright you disclosed that you were called to the Bar of New York City...such an inquisitive mind I must have but I must ask, Has Canada have a Bar? Lest not a Military? Nor a form of self Government that excludes the premise of depending upon the USA to defend its shores?
Whoa to Canada if the USA should close it's borders North.
Then what would be said of Canaduh?
Think before you speak....
:D
-
Roughly 25% of policy and politics is law and legality. The other 75% is interpretation and opinion. Wrong and right on politics is subject to your point of view. Most of the points being bantered back and forth will have no real winner, only on side finally realizing that while they may not agree with the other's point of view, it does hold validity. It all depends on what kind of a spin you put on it.
Canada thinks taking guns out of the homes will in MJ's words "limit the risk that their children will be gunned down at school or their co-workers will open fire on them". Fine. That's an argument that's used quite a bit. I disagree, though. Criminals have guns. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. Most guns criminals have are obtained illegally. I just don't think removing guns will lower the casualty rate. On the flip side, I don't think having guns will increase your safety, either. Unless, maybe, you carry it with you at all times. The bottom line is, I don't think it matters one way or the other. The only thing it does is infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms. Go after the criminals, not me.
The U.S. acts in it's own best interest. Period. Do the people here, and the Government, really care about freedom and democracy for all the world's people? I honestly believe they do. I also think that the government's first order of business is to represent me. Cut the 75% politics away from the war in Afghanistan. Every country double talks to fit within the 25% legality. EVERY COUNTRY. What was the war REALLY about? I don't think it was just about freeing an oppressed people. I think that was part of the decision making process, though. I think it came down to this:
Over the last decade, terrorist activity has been on the rise. Al Queda had grown, and was running pretty much unchecked globally. It's obvious target was the U.S. The taliban was harboring them, so the U.S. took them out. They removed 60% of Al Queda's command staff. That's a pretty big hit. We will try to build the country back up. Who knows what will happen. That's the 75% political side again. We needed to remove them and send a message that we are no longer tolerating this attack on the U.S.
I think we believe freedom IS universal, if you WANT it. Al Queda doesn't. What are they? They don't have a country. They are a band of thugs and muslim extremists. They view the west as a threat to their way of life. We can only be a threat if it's what their people want. We can't force a person from another country to watch porn, wear tight jeans, and eat McDonalds if they don't want to. Instead of returning to their countries and educating their people to preserve their beliefs, they fly jets into buildings. How does this help their cause? It doesn't. As I said before, they are thugs. If we step on their "rights" while removing them, I won't shed a tear. They gave up their rights in my eyes long ago.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
MJHerman... I was so surprised that your last articlate posting had not ended with "eh?".
During your last retoire in defending your Canadian birthright you disclosed that you were called to the Bar of New York City...such an inquisitive mind I must have but I must ask, Has Canada have a Bar? Lest not a Military? Nor a form of self Government that excludes the premise of depending upon the USA to defend its shores?
Whoa to Canada if the USA should close it's borders North.
Then what would be said of Canaduh?
Think before you speak....
:D
The quality of some aspects of the U.S. educational system is self-evident from your response.
"articlate" - Please send me an "American" dictionary so that I can look this word up.
"Bar of New York City" - Doesn't exist. But then you would know that had you read the post and seen "State of New York".
And your right, Canada doesn't have a Bar. Nor does the United States. You see, since both of us are federal countries, such matters are dealt with on a state/provincial level. But then again you would know that because you have obviously been thinking before you speak.
And of course, one always needs to include the slander against the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. We all know that but for the mighty US military those Iraqi T-72s might right now be rolling down the streets of downtown Toronto.
Buddy, put in a call to the Department of Commerce in Washington D.C. and ask them if they think it would be a good idea to close your nothern border so that no imports/exports move between the two countries. Better yet, ask them who your largest trading partner is. Even better, have them send you some information on where all those fancy parts come from that get put into Fords, GMs and Chevys or who supplies the US construction industry with a good chunk of its lumber or who supplies a TON of Hydro power to the US Northeast (Hint: They speak a bit of French). I'm sure that they could give you that information as well as whole bunch more which you may find interesting.
Fortunately for both of our countries your politicians and ours both realize that while there may be differences of opinion, we need each other.
-
AWMac - See Martlet's post for the way one should present their viewpoint.
Martlet - Somewhere (like 10 posts ago) I think everyone lost track of what in the world this whole thread was about :D Anyway:
1. All nations act in their own self-interest, including Canada, France, etc. Goes a long way to explain France's and Germany's objections to Gulf War II. France was looking to rejuvenate its "world" power (which it hasn't had since 1870 or so) and Germany was in the middle of an election. So, if we accept that all political entities act in their own self-interest, its time to start calling Freedom Fries French Fries again. Can't have it both ways...either acting in one's own interest is acceptable or it isn't.
2. I agree with you on Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. The mere act of doing so forfeits, in my mind, any rights that those people may have. Admittedly it is awfully tough to draw a distinction, but I think that my original comment was in respect of prisoners at Gitmo. Not all of them were actively engaged in terrorist activities at the time of their capture, but rather were fighting an invader/occupier. Again, I don't know how you draw the line (or if its even possible), and I won't pretend to second guess U.S. national security interests as a Monday Morning Quarterback. I just think that the manner in which US policy is presented to and perceived by the world at large is one of contradictions and inconsistencies, and that doesn't help the situation.
In short, you guys need better public relations :)
-
Hmmmm interesting.... but still a rather a nice set of evasives from being forthright to the questions.
Articulate... please excuse my typing.
"Bar of New York City" - Doesn't exist. But then you would know that had you read the post and seen "State of New York".
Nice evasion here also....
And of course, one always needs to include the slander against the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. We all know that but for the mighty US military those Iraqi T-72s might right now be rolling down the streets of downtown Toronto.
Was this really a response or another evasive twist to a real question?
And in Securing America's borders maybe there will soon be a voted bill upon the floor of OUR Congress.
If it should be then keep your GM parts and maybe you in CanaDUH will someday produce a CanaDUHian vehicle.
BURN3D
:D
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
2. Since you asked, the laws which protect and preserve French in Quebec are doing just fine and are serving their purpose. Having grown up in Montreal, I benefitted from those laws even though my first language is English. Those laws forced me to learn a second language which, to this day, I read, write and speak fluently. Our country respects the cultures and customs of others, and chooses to incorporate them into our society, rather than insulting them.
If your country has this great respect for other cultures, why does 1 province need laws to "protect" that culture, and why if this respect is so apparent does this 1 province continually ring the succession (sp?) bell.
Furthermore, why does it take laws to preserve the language, if this great Utopia exists?
If it is a law in this 1 province, then your "country" didn't choose to incorporate anything into your society as a whole..
And maybe the point can be argued that this 1 province has chosen not to respect the direction that the rest of the country is going.
Quebec is not about tolerance of other cultures. It is about the promotion of 1 french speaking culture.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
1. All nations act in their own self-interest, including Canada, France, etc. Goes a long way to explain France's and Germany's objections to Gulf War II. France was looking to rejuvenate its "world" power (which it hasn't had since 1870 or so) and Germany was in the middle of an election. So, if we accept that all political entities act in their own self-interest, its time to start calling Freedom Fries French Fries again. Can't have it both ways...either acting in one's own interest is acceptable or it isn't.
2. I agree with you on Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. The mere act of doing so forfeits, in my mind, any rights that those people may have. Admittedly it is awfully tough to draw a distinction, but I think that my original comment was in respect of prisoners at Gitmo. Not all of them were actively engaged in terrorist activities at the time of their capture, but rather were fighting an invader/occupier. Again, I don't know how you draw the line (or if its even possible), and I won't pretend to second guess U.S. national security interests as a Monday Morning Quarterback. I just think that the manner in which US policy is presented to and perceived by the world at large is one of contradictions and inconsistencies, and that doesn't help the situation.
In short, you guys need better public relations :)
1. I agree that changing the name to Freedom Fries was stupid. I take it as a joke, though. More of a political statement. I agree that the French have to act in their own best interest., just as we do. That doesn't mean when their best interests conflict with ours, we shut up and take it. Many of their interests were economic, and in direct violation of the UN sanctions which they supported (ie: CIS Paris transactions). The American people have shown their disapproval with their wallets, and it has affected the French. It will soon blow over, though. Americans have short memories with things like that.
2. I don't know how, or if, you'd draw the distinction. The Taliban directly supported Al Queda, so I personally haven't shed a tear. "We hold no distinction between the terrorists, and the country that harbor them".
-
AWMac,
My apologies that you couldn't decipher how cryptic my last response was, so:
Does Canada have a Bar?
Thought I answered this one, but if you missed it the first time, I guess it does (in fact 13 of them), otherwise I guess my lawyer credentials in this country are a figment of my imagination. Interestingly enough, we also have thousands of "bars" as well where you can get a nice cold beer and other adult beverages.
The Canadian military?
Very small but very professional. I will suggest that you contact any member of the 101st Airborne Division who was involved in combat operations on "The Whale" in Afghanistan and ask them their thoughts on the average Canadian soldier (particularly Canadian snipers). If you are into the historical side of things, try entering "Dieppe", "Vimy Ridge", "Ortona", "Carpiquet", "Falaise Gap", "Bishop" or "Beurling" into Google and see what you come up with. Or pick up a good book on the Battles of the North Atlantic in WWII. None of those bear any relation to the current state of the Canadian military, but each of them are evidence of what a relatively small population can do when it has the right tools.
If we keep the GM parts and build a car here in CanaDUH, and the auto workers in Detroit don't have the parts to build cars, doesn't that mean that US workers lose their jobs while we keep ours? If that is the case, can I please vote on that Bill that is in front of Congress.
Any other questions that I didn't reply to in a forthright manner? Please let me know because I am always willing to help friends out with concepts that are totally alien to them.
-
Martlet,
Personally I can't stand George W., but I do have a lot of respect for him (or his speechwriters) when it comes to some of the things that he has said.
Along with "We hold no distinction between the terrorists, and the country that harbor them" I always thought that his first statement at Ground Zero was worthy of history's all time sound bites. It was something like "Well I can hear you, and soon the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from all of us."
-
Hmmmm my knowledge of history escapes me at times...refresh my memories if you will.
There's a gap in South Korea that I had visited that was dedicated to Canadians... tough spot for them I'd say.
Hmmm and there's one on the shores during WWII... Is it Tubruk?
I tend to forget at times.
:D
-
Originally posted by Stringer
If your country has this great respect for other cultures, why does 1 province need laws to "protect" that culture, and why if this respect is so apparent does this 1 province continually ring the succession (sp?) bell.
Furthermore, why does it take laws to preserve the language, if this great Utopia exists?
If it is a law in this 1 province, then your "country" didn't choose to incorporate anything into your society as a whole..
And maybe the point can be argued that this 1 province has chosen not to respect the direction that the rest of the country is going.
Quebec is not about tolerance of other cultures. It is about the promotion of 1 french speaking culture.
All valid points, but you have to draw a couple of distinctions:
1. The whole succession thing - Like a lot of other things, the talk of seperation/succession is driven by politicians. The easiest way to explain it is to compare it to the U.S. Civil War which had a lot to do with state rights. One political party in Quebec believes that federalism limits the rights of the province. It's not a language/culture issue at its core...its a constitutional issue.
2. The first language of 85% of people in Quebec is French. Prior to the enactment of the French language laws (roughly 1976), English was the predominant language, with the result that some 85% of the local population could not or did not receive services in their mother tongue, could not educate their children in French schools, etc. The laws in question don't limit the rights of anyone who doesn't speak French (and in fact helps them by promoting a bilingual society), but rather were intended simply to redress the balance. Although not to the same degree, you could equate it with the Civil Rights Movement in the US in the 60s.
3. The rest of the country has always accepted the principle that Quebec and its population are different culturally (putting aside the rednecks that any nation has to deal with). Canada has two official languages, and has had two official languages since 1759. So the concept of English and French co-existing predates Quebec's language laws by more than 200 years.
4. French Canadians do not think that they are "better" or that French Canadian culture is "more worthy" (again, putting aside the rednecks). I have yet to meet a French Canadian who believes that English Canada should be eradicated from Quebec. Look at it this way, if history dealt you a deck of cards that said that you were one of 8 million French speaking people with a common history, language and culture sitting on a continent with another 250 million people who have a different history, language and culture, how would you feel? Some people would say "assimilate"....French Canadians have always chosen not to.
All I can suggest would be spending a week or two in Montreal. You concern about the tolerance level of French Canadians may be changed and, if not, it is a great party town :D
-
Freedom isn't something you earn. It is a God giving right inherent at birth. It is not granted to people at the whim of the state, the courts or the President. And the only way it can be taken away is in accordance with due process and the rule of law.
While many are born into a free society, that freedom does not remain without sacrifice. Your statement above regarding the loss of freedom only by means of due process and law does not hold water. Please show me the evidence of freedoms inherent by birth for those who live in countries ruled by dictators and criminals...the Middle East, Africa, etc.
Incarceration is not the only means of losing one's freedom....recite for me the due process layed out for the Iraqi people over the past 30 years....or perhaps those in Bosnia or Africa.
Where you may believe that freedom is your right by words alone, I believe that freedom is my priviledge and that it requires a constant defense.
Either freedom is universal or it isn't. If US-type freedom is universal (in fact I recall your President making statements about how Gulf War II was about freedom), then it should be extended to everyone and only taken away in accordance with the very laws that you cherish so much and rely on so much to preserve "your" freedom. If it isn't, then the US should get off it's high horse and call it like it is. You have the bigger guns, so you can do what you want. The latter is fine with me too, but if that's the case, cut the rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy" and just say "We do it because we can".
The freedom I spoke to earlier was that which is afforded American citizens as opposed to those afforded criminals from outside our jurisdiction who come to this country to kill us or destroy this nation.
Now councelor....you may feel that even those terrorists are afforded the same defense as an American criminal, I do not. It is this very bleeding heart approach to justice, which in my opinion has corrupted our justice system....the very criminals which do us harm, are often afforded more rights than those who are victimized and the lawyers of this country are very much a part of the problem.
The freedom President Bush speaks to is for those who ride under the foot of corrupt governments or other organized bodies which oppress the innocent....what specific law would you reference which would or could free those peoples around the world of which I speak?
As to my freedom, my founding fathers and the generations since fought to obtain and keep their freedom as well, both on the battlefield and off, as did many people in other democratic societies around this world. I have also served and continue to serve my country to preserve those freedoms and the ideals that we believe in. So sorry, but no monopoly for you on that either.
Never spoke to only wanting freedom for Americans....your leading the witness.
You also contradict yourself with the above....you speak of fighting to obtain freedom, while within the same post you say it is is inherent by birth and not earned.
As to the whole gun thing...I'm sure your founding fathers specifically intended that every Joe Sixpack should have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon when they wrote the words:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In 1791 that made sense. In 2003, if you need a gun to protect your person and property, its probably time to consider moving to a new neighbourhood. Either way I don't care...if you want your guns that's fine. Just don't pretend that because other societies choose to limit the risks that their children will be gunned down at school or their co-workers will open fire on them that it makes those societies any "less free".
This is interesting....any less free? I suppose that freedom is defined by you and yours in East Canada?
Just prior to posting this, I got off the phone with a friend of mine in Alberta...his opinion differs slightly from your own and I'm confident you know why.
You seem so very intersted in defending the freedoms of those who choose to kill, but those who abide by the law, never committing any crime, are the ones whom you choose to punish.
It's good to know that some things in life are constant...Lawyers speak out of both sides of their mouths in countries other than the USA.
Lawyers here in the US should take a long and careful look into who they are and why they practice....perhaps they might come to realize that the perversion of our legal system is born directly on their shoulders....of course, I'm sure it's different in Canada:)
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Hmmmm my knowledge of history escapes me at times...refresh my memories if you will.
There's a gap in South Korea that I had visited that was dedicated to Canadians... tough spot for them I'd say.
Hmmm and there's one on the shores during WWII... Is it Tubruk?
I tend to forget at times.
:D
The place in South Korea escapes me at the moment too. Kowang San rings a bell as the location of one of the battles in Korea.
I could be wrong, but Canadian units did not fight in North Africa, especially at Tobruk. You may be thinking of the Aussies and the Kiwis.
-
Yes you are right about Kowang San...8th Rgmt if I'm mistaken. They held their own but defeated.
Tobruk was in my sense Canadian. Largest evacuation ever in the history of WWII... Let me do a Google on it.
:confused:
-
You are thinking about Dunkirk (a Brit affair). Tobruk was under siege by the Afrika Korps and eventually surrendered.
Kowang San was 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment. For a spunky Canadian Battalion holding off a division of Chinese I would say that "defeated" is probably not the right word....more like "strategic withdrawal" :)
-
Every country that fights has a history of defeats in battle. Using them to imply a military is incapable just doesn't hold water. Canada's military doesn't compare with the U.S. No one's does. But I've worked with members of it, and found them to be very capable at what they do.
Further, even though some perceive tension between the U.S. and Canada, one of the biggest mistakes we can make is to judge a nations people by the actions of it's leader. Canada's P.M. is at the end of his career. He's blatantly anti-American, and is using his office to portray that. Many canadian politicians have publicly stated they don't support many of his decisions. I had a business office in Canada once, and except for the time I got in a fight with a guy for screwing his girlfriend, I found them to be extremely friendly towards Americans. That's just my experience though.
I also found French Canadians to be different. I found them to be extremely rude, and extremely cheap. Again, that's just my personal experiences.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
All I can suggest would be spending a week or two in Montreal. You concern about the tolerance level of French Canadians may be changed and, if not, it is a great party town :D
I lived in Boston for 16 years. I am VERY familiar with Montreal and it's attractions :D
I will say that my exposure to French Canadians has been negative when they vacation in Maine, but in Montreal, it has been very positive :)
-
Our P.M.'s career was finished years ago. Frankly, most Canadians are embarrassed at his conduct on a wide variety of stuff. The guy has been a politician for 45 years if you could believe, and you would have thought after all that time he would have learned something!
His "leadership" skills are non-existant. When the power went out last week this guy was sitting in his vacation home in Quebec (maybe a 90 minute flight from Ottawa). He chose not to fly back to Ottawa during the crisis, even though this is the same guy who authorized our Department of Defence to purchase four brand new VIP/Executive transport jets at a time when the Government said that it couldn't afford to replace the 40+ year old Sea Kings that the Navy is still flying off the back of our destroyers and frigates.
I'm sorry you guys have had some negative experiences with Canadians (French or English), but I guess that happens all over. Reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Bart gets an elephant. At the end of the show, they give the elephant to the zoo, and the elephant immediately starts picking fights with the other elephants. The zoo keeper makes the comment that elephants are territorial and that this elephant who is beating up on the others is just trying to show who the boss is. The zoo keeper then pauses and says: "Or it could be that the elephant is just a jerk...".
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
All valid points, but you have to draw a couple of distinctions:
All I can suggest would be spending a week or two in Montreal. You concern about the tolerance level of French Canadians may be changed :D
I lived in Montreal for a year in the mid 70's for business and I disagree with your statement whole heartedly.
-
OK. Each of us has our own experiences.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
I could be wrong, but Canadian units did not fight in North Africa, especially at Tobruk. You may be thinking of the Aussies and the Kiwis.
RCAF squadrons served in North Africa.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
I could be wrong, but Canadian units did not fight in North Africa,
RCAF squadrons served in North Africa.