Political Discussions

[TStyle]

I usually don’t like to jump into political debates but personally I don’t think either candidate was a worthy choice for running our government but then again, there is probably only a handful of people in world, let alone the nation, who would really be fit to run a government period.

Also running an election over again, in my opinion, is a bad idea. If someone was to declare a revote or a recount we probably still would not have a president because neither side would trust the other enough to ever concede. Plus, it is a matter of give an inch, take a mile. If a revote or recount was issued nationally for the presidential election, someone would probably demand one every election no matter how clean cut the votes seem to be.

My two cents...

[Fiferguy]

What we realy need to do is abolish the archaic electoral college. Many people do not realize that we do NOT really vote for the president in the USA. We express our desire for candidates to the electoral college. A slim majority in a state can get also all that state's electoral votes. The electoral college can put any candidate in power that they wish.

Amen. But unfortunately, I don't believe that we'll be able to get rid of it. But I agree, we need to get rid of it.

Unfortunately, neither was the opposition. Democrats are for The Party. Republicans are for The Party. Taxpayers are simply for paying taxes to enrich Democrats and Republicans and their respective parties so are given the illusion that they have a choice of presidents. You do realize that campaign money not spent on an election is a "gift" to a candidate, don't you? You don't really need to win an election.

Personally, I believe that Kerry would have been a really good President. He certainly wouldn't have let another country buy American ports. And I don't care that it was an Arab country. The thing that really makes me angry is that he sold American ports to ANY foreign country. And did so without any congressional approval. I have a feeling in the end that the deal will fall through for various reasons, but still.

Personally, I think we should not only impeach Bush, but try him for war crimes for the torture that was and probably still is happening at some of the military prisons overseas.

But that's just my opinion. I also believe that the Earth is headed to another massive die-off of the human race, similar to the Dark Ages or an Ice Age, and so society as we know it will be destroyed and Mother Nature will reassert her dominance once more. And then it won't matter what Bush does...unfortunately, we have to live through his stupidity.

[Trekkie]

The thing that really makes me angry is that he sold American ports to ANY foreign country. And did so without any congressional approval. I have a feeling in the end that the deal will fall through for various reasons, but still.

LMAO, you make it sound like bush sold port administration to the british company in the first place. That happened before bush was president.

Personally, I think we should not only impeach Bush, but try him for war crimes for the torture that was and probably still is happening at some of the military prisons overseas.

Hmm ............ commence the torturing.

Confess! Confess! Confess!
It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.
Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Yes, lord.
Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

Do you have any proof that bush ordered inhumane torture? (and dont bring up abu gharib, those people were acting alone)

[dstar]

Do you have any proof that bush ordered inhumane torture? (and dont bring up abu gharib, those people were acting alone)

No, they weren't.

Face it, when we have a president who opposes a bill outlawing torture, a memo going around that says that the president can authorize torture, and soldiers committing torture... it's not that hard to connect the dots.

It doesn't just walk like a duck and quack like a duck, it's laying duck eggs.

[Fiferguy]

[quote="dstarIt doesn't just walk like a duck and quack like a duck, it's laying duck eggs.[/quote]

In other words, if it looks like $h*&, smells like $h*&, and tastes like $h*&, it's probably Bush...

[Spec8472]

Do you have any proof that bush ordered inhumane torture? (and dont bring up abu gharib, those people were acting alone)

The stuff happening in Guantanamo Bay isn't exactly "bring the comfy chair".

What Bush and others under his command (being the Commander in Chief) are doing there is just plain wrong.

First and Foremost, to put someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime, let alone charged with a crime, in a place where there's a complete legal black hole - is wrong.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be severe punishment for those convicted of doing evil things (deliberate/knowing attacks on civilians, for example). However to leave them in a place where they have no ability to answer for their alleged crimes is completely immoral.

This series of actions leaves captured US and allied countries' citizens and military personel open to similar treatment by other foreign governments.

If a US citizen or twenty was accused of planning/carrying out terrorist acts* by, lets just say China, and then imprisoned, tortured, and interrogated without ever being charged or convicted of any crime - The US government and US media would be outraged. You'd all be calling for action to be taken.

However, it seems that the US Government is just happy to do this to foreign nationals.

* Note that in China, handing out leaflets on non-state-approved religion (Budhism, and Falun Gong, for example) could potentially be construed as a terrorist act. So don't go thinking that terrorism always equals bombing/killing in the eyes of governments.

[J-Man5]

Don't you guys think that what happens here in the US is more important than what the US does overseas? Americans are being onerously abused and "tortured" every day by the US govt. the opressive system of taxation with out any real representation is what originally caused the 13 colonies to break away from the "mother" country of Britan. Many would like this to happen again. But since there are overwhelming military options available today Civil war/revolution/uprisings would not be allowed to happen. Trust me in that the government has already planned what to do in case this ever happens. Both sides and all presidents and congress are to blame. There is enough guilt to go arround.

I know some here are Christian and others with other beliefs but there is a passage I thought appropriate.

Ecclesiates 1:15 - That which is made crooked cannot be made straight;

This is true of any of the systems we live under today. There will have to be smarter men than me to figure out a solution to the politicians and lobbyists and lawyers who inhabit out nations capitol and state capitols.

As Shakespear said Kill all the Lawyers. To that I add and the politicians and lobbyists too!!!

J-Man5

[Trekkie]

First and Foremost, to put someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime, let alone charged with a crime, in a place where there's a complete legal black hole - is wrong.

You know, its almost like what happened to pows in WW1 and WW2.

These are people caught in another country (iraq) trying to blow up our troops. What would you do with them? (and note most of the time when they are released, they go back to doing the same things they got caught doing in the first place)

[dstar]

First and Foremost, to put someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime, let alone charged with a crime, in a place where there's a complete legal black hole - is wrong.

You know, its almost like what happened to pows in WW1 and WW2.

These are people caught in another country (iraq) trying to blow up our troops. What would you do with them? (and note most of the time when they are released, they go back to doing the same things they got caught doing in the first place)

No, they aren't. A large proportion of them (if not the majority) were captured because Abdul said "Hey, Ismallah over there is a bad guy", and we didn't know that Ismallah married the girl that Abdul wanted five years ago.

We need to try them and convict them, or let them go, one. We do not have the right to hold them indefinitely.

[Were_Fan]

First and Foremost, to put someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime, let alone charged with a crime, in a place where there's a complete legal black hole - is wrong.

You know, its almost like what happened to pows in WW1 and WW2.

These are people caught in another country (iraq) trying to blow up our troops. What would you do with them? (and note most of the time when they are released, they go back to doing the same things they got caught doing in the first place)

Most, if not all, of the people incarcerated at Guantanamo were non-uniformed fighters. Under the Geneva convention they can be killed. Everyone seems to forget that major point of law.

Can detainees that can legally be put to death be tortured before being killed? That depends on multiple factors. The laws of the country they are captured in apply. The lkaws of where they are incarcerated apply. The laws of the country the supposed torturers claim citizenship apply. Apparently good old George thinks torture is OK. Like Slick Willy before him, anything is OK if he wants to do it. Kill a lawyer, commit perjury, detain US citizens without a trial, give port contracts away, lie about reasons for a war, get blowjobs from underlings, take "campaign" donations from drug dealers and Chinesespies ... anything goes.

[Spec8472]

You know, its almost like what happened to pows in WW1 and WW2.

These are people caught in another country (iraq) trying to blow up our troops. What would you do with them? (and note most of the time when they are released, they go back to doing the same things they got caught doing in the first place)

Yes, you place troops in POW camps - but they're kept in conditions compliant with Geneva conventions (no torture/interrogations/etc, red cross access, etc).

At the end of that war (which apparently has happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq - after all, there's new governments in place) - those troops are released. If they commited crimes, they're handed over to authorities in those countries.

Except the US gov't isn't saying these people are troops - it's saying they're different - terrorists.
So it's applying some whole other set of rules, which definitely don't resemble any internationally accepted standard.
It's applying abitrary rules to those to whom it never applied previously.

Heck, it's not even US Military laws which give some (limited) rights (i.e: no torture).

[J-Man5]

How about we lock this topic and dropt he subject. It's getting boring. I think we all agree that governments are bad yet there is no good solution.

I think the only way this topic could be saved is if someone started coming up with ideas on what to do.

J-Man5

[J-Man5]

1st idea.

Shoot them all let whichever god or goddess sort them out.

I know it's a bad idea.

J-Man5

[Spec8472]

Most, if not all, of the people incarcerated at Guantanamo were non-uniformed fighters.

Yes.

Under the Geneva convention they can be killed. Everyone seems to forget that major point of law.

Uhh... I don't see that anywhere.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

quick definitions:

sabotage

An occupying power may sentence civilians to death if they are guilty of serious acts of sabotage — but only if these offenses were punishable by death by local laws before the occupation began. (Convention IV, Art. 68)


spies

Combatant who are captured while spying do not have the right to prisoner of war status unless they were wearing their military uniforms. (Protocol I, Art. 46)


Actual excerpts:

Protocol I
Section II
Article 44:
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.



Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


I havn't read all of them, but I don't see even the non-unformed combatants being quite classified as Mercinaries. Even still, the provisions don't provide for them being killed or tortured.

[Fiferguy]

On the same page...

terrorism

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to collective penalties or any other measures of intimidation or terrorism. (Convention IV, Art. 33)

Wouldn't you say that kicking/kneeing someone in a major nerve junction or having your hands hung from the ceiling is intimidation AND terrorism? Even the terrorists have more humanity than that...yes, they've captured people, even innocent civilians. But answer this, if it was your home that was overrun by a hostile force, wouldn't you use any means you could to get them out? And the people the terrorists kidnapped are only held for a few days or a couple weeks. They are at least killed quickly. I know that might seem like a cold-hearted way of looking at it, but it's a war. People die in a war. Even innocent civilians. But the US government/military has held people for years without charges, without legal representation, and without hope. EVEN AMERICAN CIVILIANS.

And, let's look at this paragraph, also from the Geneva Convention...

torture

Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).

Torture is forbidden. Seems pretty clear to me. But maybe I'm brainwashed into not being able to read black and white...or maybe Bush and his administration are so full of themselves that they believe they are above the law.

J-Man5 had a good idea. I for one cannot think of any way to solve the problem. I once read somewhere that the people who want to lead are the very people who shouldn't lead, and the people who don't wish to lead are the people that we should have as leaders. If there's one constant on this planet, it is the eternal greed of humankind. And I include myself in that. But the greed for power and money is what cause Hitler to come to power in the 1930's, and it is what is causing the mess right now.

I see two major differences between Hitler and Bush, however. Number one, unless something drastic happens, God forbid, Bush can't be reelected. Number two, Hitler was a MUCH better speaker.