Politics: J'accuse! - Page 278

Not Me · 05-12-2004, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

His boobs are almost as big as mine! LOL!!

Not Me · 05-12-2004, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
[America commits war crimes!! I hate America!!!]

Thanks, GGG, for yet another insightful post.

bilmore · 05-12-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, who do you think will get to hang out in the Hague to chat about Geneva Convention violations?

I Bin Gone, but has anyone thrashed this over yet?

"To qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, detainees must satisfy all four of the following criteria (the quotations here come from the Convention itself):

***The detainees in question must have been “commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates”

***They must have worn “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”

***They must have carried their arms “openly”

***And they must have conducted their operations “in accordance with the laws and customs of war”

Secret_Agent_Man · 05-12-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.hillnews.com/news/051204/patriot.aspx

Well, well, a principled stand. Must be the junior House Republicans.

[Or, maybe its the millenarianism that AG spoke of.]

Let's see if Delay and Hastert crush them again, like on the Medicare bill.

S_A_M

Not Me · 05-12-2004, 03:22 PM

Does anyone else find it incredibly odd that Nick Berg was in Iraq? He wasn't a contractor. He just went there on his own to supposedly, try to help rebuild Iraq. WTF? Can anyone just go to Iraq if they want to?

In the reports that I read, he is referred to as a business owner and the business is called a telecommunications business. So, he owns a telecommunications business at 26 years old and instead of bidding on contracts, he just shows up in Iraq to look for work? WTF?

It is all so odd to me. It doesn't surprise me at all that he was detained in Iraq. People must have been like WTF are you doing here? Really, WTF was he doing there?

Gattigap · 05-12-2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I Bin Gone, but has anyone thrashed this over yet?

"To qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, detainees must satisfy all four of the following criteria (the quotations here come from the Convention itself):

***The detainees in question must have been “commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates”

***They must have worn “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”

***They must have carried their arms “openly”

***And they must have conducted their operations “in accordance with the laws and customs of war”

No. But given that Bush administration officials have been falling all over themselves in the current hearings to proclaim that we had decided that Iraqi detainees should have been treated in accordance with the Convention, and that the miscreants in Abu Ghraib simply didn't follow those orders, I'm guessing that the Bushies didn't find this observation a compelling one.

Gattigap

Not Me · 05-12-2004, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I Bin Gone, but has anyone thrashed this over yet?

"To qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, detainees must satisfy all four of the following criteria (the quotations here come from the Convention itself):

***The detainees in question must have been “commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates”

***They must have worn “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”

***They must have carried their arms “openly”

***And they must have conducted their operations “in accordance with the laws and customs of war”

I watched the Senate hearings where Rummy and Myers testified. According to them, there are two provisions (articles?) of the Geneva conventions. One applies to POWs and one applies to those detained for criminal conduct. According to them, the Iraqi detainees that were in the pictures fell into the detained for criminal conduct category.

I don't know anything else about this. Just remember them making this distinction during the hearings.

Hank Chinaski · 05-12-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
No. But given that Bush administration officials have been falling all over themselves in the current hearings to proclaim that we had decided that Iraqi detainees should have been treated in accordance with the Convention, and that the miscreants in Abu Ghraib simply didn't follow those orders, I'm guessing that the Bushies didn't find this observation a compelling one.

Gattigap

or maybe they were trying to be honest about something they were embaressed about? people have to remember to think back before 92 for examples of how a president should behave and run a staff.

ltl/fb · 05-12-2004, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or maybe they were trying to be honest about something they were embaressed about? people have to remember to think back before 92 for examples of how a president should behave and run a staff.

What are you talking about? Gatti was simply saying that the Administration (and/or Congress) have apparently taken it as a given that the abused prisoners were subject to the Geneva Convention, or should have been treated in accordance with it, so bilmore's apparent suggestion that they say "the abuse was OK because they weren't subject to the Geneva Convention because they weren't wearing fixed distinctive signs recognizable at a distance" is moot.

Though, for purely partisan reasons, I'd love to see them try that.

Hank Chinaski · 05-12-2004, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What are you talking about? Gatti was simply saying that the Administration (and/or Congress) have apparently taken it as a given that the abused prisoners were subject to the Geneva Convention, or should have been treated in accordance with it, so bilmore's apparent suggestion that they say "the abuse was OK because they weren't subject to the Geneva Convention because they weren't wearing fixed distinctive signs recognizable at a distance" is moot.

Though, for purely partisan reasons, I'd love to see them try that.

my point was "the abuse was okay because" might not be something Bush is trying to get to because he feels it isn't okay.

bilmore · 05-12-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
No. But given that Bush administration officials have been falling all over themselves in the current hearings to proclaim that we had decided that Iraqi detainees should have been treated in accordance with the Convention, and that the miscreants in Abu Ghraib simply didn't follow those orders, I'm guessing that the Bushies didn't find this observation a compelling one.

Gattigap

Ah, so they're going to concede the issue? Too bad. I would think that hiding amongst the women and kids while you shoot might give them a problem claiming GC protection.

But, "falling all over themselves"? Somehow I can't imagine that from Rummy, or any other Bush people. Is that how you phrase it when someone you don't like does something they should?

Shape Shifter · 05-12-2004, 03:45 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ld_1&printer=1

I'm a little surprised not to read about his proclamations on WMDs set to Hayden.

ltl/fb · 05-12-2004, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my point was "the abuse was okay because" might not be something Bush is trying to get to because he feels it isn't okay.

I agree with you.

ETA see, bilmore is sad that they are not pushing on that point to justify the abuse.

bilmore · 05-12-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
ETA see, bilmore is sad that they are not pushing on that point to justify the abuse.

It's like having my own deranged stalker.

ltl/fb · 05-12-2004, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
It's like having my own deranged stalker.

Doesn't it make you feel special?