Politics: J'accuse! - Page 281

Not Me · 05-12-2004, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I understand that part, but I have seen good counterarguments as to that applicability,

What counterarguments?

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
plus what do you then do about the people who are clearly not in for criminal acts, but for war capture?

What do you mean by "war capture"? Were they firing at our troops but not in uniform or something like that?

bilmore · 05-12-2004, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Well, if we're going down that line of argument, isn't it easier to say that while Iraq and Afghanistan were signatories to the GC, the resistance movement doesn't represent the government or people of those nations, and thus the combatants are not entitled to the protections of a treaty they (and their "government") have not ratified?

Easier, yes. But, that would be wrong.

Not Me · 05-12-2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If you're saying this poor guy was too stupid to live, that's your point and no one else's. Good luck with that.

Not saying he was too stupid to live. Just saying he was stupid. Maybe naive is a better word. But most likely stupid and naive. I am saddened that it cost him is life in such a horrific* manner, but he was incredibly naive to be there, and yes, stupid, too.

* note the appropriate use of the word horrific. Your post was so laughable yesterday regarding what is horrific and what is not that I didn't even bother to respond. It was just, stoopid. Not thinking about heading over to Iraq to see if they need any lawyers by any chance, are you?

Sexual Harassment Panda · 05-12-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Not saying he was too stupid to live. Just saying he was stupid. Maybe naive is a better word. But most likely stupid and naive. I am saddened that it cost him is life in such a horrific* manner, but he was incredibly naive to be there, and yes, stupid, too.

Quite the difference in tone from your posts yesterday.

Hank Chinaski · 05-12-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Ah yes. Underlings given implicit carte blanche to wantonly violate national and international laws by a head that's bumbling and inattentive, who then denies all knowledge and hangs them out to dry once the jig is up.

Check. Got it.

Define "is."

conf. to Baltassoc-you don't need me as your enemy, trust me. you keep quiet.

Not Me · 05-12-2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Quite the difference in tone from your posts yesterday.

This is a different issue.

Yesterday I was speaking about the ridiculousness of people labeling putting panties on someone's head an atrocity. And I was expressing my anger and grief over what happened to this kid, which I still feel today.

Today I am speaking about why was he there in the first place. I don't feel anger about him being there, but I do think it was incredibly stupid and naive for him to be there. I also started to think today about how random westerners walking around Iraq jeopardize the safety of our military because they become targets and the military may feel the need to try to rescue them.

Although I understand his parents grief, I am quite a bit bothered at them wanting to blame the FBI for detaining him because, they say, if he hadn't been detained, he would have gotten out safely. How the fuck do they know that he would have gotten out safely? He would have had that big red target on his head 3 weeks earlier, too.

Their kid shouldn't have been there. It is not whoever detained him's fault. It is the fault of the murderers. They are wrong to blame whoever detained him.

Hank Chinaski · 05-12-2004, 06:40 PM

one comment- the liberals on this board have no quality control over whom they let post. you get these idiots trying to make arguments for you, and they fall on their face or get twisting or confused like a Dade county voter trying to decipher a 3 candidate ballot.

Ty, can't you just pm them and suggest they stay away?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-12-2004, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OTOH, maybe Bush can't afford to let Powell so soon before the election. What's Powell's game here?

Powell's had his bags packed for over a year--he's just waiting for Nov. 5 to hail the porter.

ltl/fb · 05-12-2004, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one comment- the liberals on this board have no quality control over whom they let post. you get these idiots trying to make arguments for you, and they fall on their face or get twisting or confused like a Dade county voter trying to decipher a 3 candidate ballot.

Ty, can't you just pm them and suggest they stay away?

Pot/kettle. you guys have Not Me and bilmore. and club (though on good days he's fine). and fake regulation-is-OK-if-it-benefits-me libertarians.

Secret_Agent_Man · 05-12-2004, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Well, if we're going down that line of argument, isn't it easier to say that while Iraq and Afghanistan were signatories to the GC, the resistance movement doesn't represent the government or people of those nations, and thus the combatants are not entitled to the protections of a treaty they (and their "government") have not ratified?

Is that how it works?

Do we technically not have to follow the Convention, even though we signed it, if we're fighting someone who has not?

S_A_M

notcasesensitive · 05-12-2004, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one comment- the liberals on this board have no quality control over whom they let post. you get these idiots trying to make arguments for you, and they fall on their face or get twisting or confused like a Dade county voter trying to decipher a 3 candidate ballot.

Ty, can't you just pm them and suggest they stay away?

that's why I retired from Politics after going 3 and 0 on all debates with the vast right-wing conspiracy.* look it up.

*including my 1-0 victory over you, Hank.

The Larry Davis Experience · 05-12-2004, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Shit. I have to disappear again. But, first, these stats do not seem to work for the specific individuals about whom the military intell people had great interest - ie., the ones being softened up for interrogation. I very strongly question your assertion that these people were innocent shoppers picked up in a random sweep. As far as the Red Cross BS, I question the vailidity of asking inmates why they are imprisoned, getting a "I didn't do nuthin' ", and then saying 80% are poor innocents based on those answers. Read up on it - that seems to have been the methodology.

The ICRC aren't the only ones saying there was a significant group of noninsurgents there. The Taguba report said Gen. Karpinski estimated that 40% of the Abu Ghraib pop was not detained for "crimes against the coalition," and she would have as much motivation for deflating that number as the ICRC has to inflate it.

Secret_Agent_Man · 05-12-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
But, first, these stats do not seem to work for the specific individuals about whom the military intell people had great interest - ie., the ones being softened up for interrogation. I very strongly question your assertion that these people were innocent shoppers picked up in a random sweep.

As to the specific Abu Ghraib prisoners in the pictures released so far, you're probably right given the cellblock they were held in. The stories of (much) less severe abuses and prolonged questioning under physical stress for folks picked up in sweeps or in raids on their homes who are later released abound and are essentially unchallenged.

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
As far as the Red Cross BS, I question the vailidity of asking inmates why they are imprisoned, getting a "I didn't do nuthin' ", and then saying 80% are poor innocents based on those answers. Read up on it - that seems to have been the methodology.

OK, but. The Taguba report estimated that 60% of the detainees in Abu Ghraib (I think -- rather than overall) had zero to do with the resistance. I don't think he asked the ICRC. Again, we're the regular jailers too.

S_A_M

[eta: Dammit Larry, we've got to get our story straight!]

Atticus Grinch · 05-12-2004, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Is that how it works?

Do we technically not have to follow the Convention, even though we signed it, if we're fighting someone who has not?

I am not an international lawyer --- because, as we all know, there is no such thing as international law yadda yadda yadda --- but as I understand it, this Protocol applies to a country's suppression of its own armed insurrections without requiring that the combat between signatory nations. Additionally, this Convention against torture and inhumane treatment does not even require that the prisoner be a combatant. These conventions (to which I believe the U.S. is a signatory, with conditions and reservations) would limit U.S. actions even if Iraq was never a signatory.

By contrast, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which is one of the big Conventions we generally refer to as "the Geneva Conventions," "shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties". Before we start thinking that this means it doesn't apply to POWs in Iraq because we are no longer at war with Iraq, "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

So the answer to your question is that the last linked document is not enforceable against a signatory at war with a non-signatory, but it does apply in Iraq. Bilmore was too wily to take my bait, damn him.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-12-2004, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one comment- the liberals on this board have no quality control over whom they let post. you get these idiots trying to make arguments for you, and they fall on their face or get twisting or confused like a Dade county voter trying to decipher a 3 candidate ballot.

Ty, can't you just pm them and suggest they stay away?

If you've got some concrete suggestions about how to get the lefties to follow the same set of talking points, I'd like to hear it. I looked at the excerpts of David Brock's new book about the right-wing media conspiracy on Salon, but the bits I've read are long on fulmination and short on implementation. I still don't understand how the right-wing conspiracy gets all the pundits and politicians and Drudge and the "journalists" at FOX and everyone singing from the same sheet. Please explain.