Political Discussions

User avatar
Journeywoman
Sui'Kun
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:27 am
Location: BrizVegas

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Journeywoman »

Fiferguy wrote: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.
The problem is that currently Bush is war mongering for the next country to invade, I don't necessarily think it will be Iran but their Nuclear Program is a good example. And if little Bush goes in guns blazing the next president will have a mess on their hands and once the US is committed it looks bad pulling out with a president change and who knows, with the oil prices being hiked they could very well continue...
A very sad possibilty.
My 2 cents.
Abandon the search for truth; settle for good fantasy!
User avatar
Were_Fan
Katzh-dashi
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: NorAm, Earth, SOL, Milky Way, GalacZip 314-159-265-358-979

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Were_Fan »

Spec8472 wrote:
Trekkie wrote: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".
True. Prisons are not generally the same as resorts.
What Bush and others under his command (being the Commander in Chief) are doing there is just plain wrong.
I agree. War to please daddy or enrich the vice president's company with a no-bid contract is 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.
The people being held at Gitmo were captured captured bearing arms while not in uniform. They can legally be executed under the rules of the Geneva convention. Whether they can be held indefinitely before being executed is a matter for the courts. They should not be tortured.
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.
The prisoners are not being left anywhere. They are being held while a conflict is still in progress. Again, not against the law.
This series of actions leaves captured US and allied countries' citizens and military personel open to similar treatment by other foreign governments.
The people being held by US forces are not legal armed forces combatants representing any government.
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.
I'm a former US soldier. Training is very specific in the prohibition of torture and treatment of prisoners and civillians. If a US soldier got caught in a terrorist act, I would be glad to be on their firing squad.

However, it seems that the US Government is just happy to do this to foreign nationals.
No, the current Bush adminirstration is happy to do this to both foreign nationals and US citizens. Bush and Cheney could well find their heads on the block for their actions. Cheney may be in hot water when the whole story about disclosing a CIA op's identity comes out. Notice how his story is changing about the disclosure. Cheney now is claiming he has the authority to declassify classified info.



* 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.
Terrorism is terorism. If China did that, the international community would rebuff their claims, just like they did about Tiannamen (sp?) square massacre. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. When in a foreign country, you obey their laws or face their justice system. The dumb shit that got caned in an Asian country had it coming since he knew the penalty. In another country, it was acceptable to rape a girl because her brother talked to someone not of his social status. If that was tried here, the perps would be tried and (hopefully) sent to prison.
Last edited by Were_Fan on Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
--
Jim/Were Fan
http://ilcomps.com
Baen Book free SciFi CDs:
http://www.ilcomps.com/Baen/Baen_index.htm
User avatar
Were_Fan
Katzh-dashi
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: NorAm, Earth, SOL, Milky Way, GalacZip 314-159-265-358-979

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Were_Fan »

Trekkie wrote:
Spec8472 wrote: 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)
The people at Gitmo are not technically prisoners of war. They were armed combatants not part of any governments troops. They can be summarily executed within the terms of the Geneva convention. They can be held indefinitely for the duration of the "conflict".
--
Jim/Were Fan
http://ilcomps.com
Baen Book free SciFi CDs:
http://www.ilcomps.com/Baen/Baen_index.htm
User avatar
Were_Fan
Katzh-dashi
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: NorAm, Earth, SOL, Milky Way, GalacZip 314-159-265-358-979

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Were_Fan »

dstar wrote:
Trekkie wrote:
Spec8472 wrote: 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.
No, you are wrong. The people caught fighting were not part of any country's armed forces. They can be executed at any time.
--
Jim/Were Fan
http://ilcomps.com
Baen Book free SciFi CDs:
http://www.ilcomps.com/Baen/Baen_index.htm
User avatar
Were_Fan
Katzh-dashi
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: NorAm, Earth, SOL, Milky Way, GalacZip 314-159-265-358-979

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Were_Fan »

Spec8472 wrote:
Were_Fan wrote:Most, if not all, of the people incarcerated at Guantanamo were non-uniformed fighters.
Yes.
Were_Fan wrote:Under the Geneva convention they can be killed. Everyone seems to forget that major point of law.
Uhh... I don't see that anywhere.
And you won't. I think what many people miss is that if it is not prohibited in the Geneva Convention, it is allowed. There are also many exclusions such as perfidy (such as faking being wounded, faking surrender) that put you outside the convention's protection. The Gitmo detainees are not in uniform so they initailly are classed as civilians. Article 68 of convention IV states:
"Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously ..."

Notice the "life or limb" exclusion? As a "civilian", if you make an attempt on the life or limb of an occupying force, you can be whacked. The convention is riddled with these type of exclusions.
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)
Yup, Doing things like blowing up restaurants, banks, churches and security checkpoints can get you executed.
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)
Notice that bit about the uniform? :-) If you aren't in uniform, you don't get POW status.
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.
Generally applies unless you do something to get you excluded from the protections of the convention. There are a LOT of exclusions.
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.
I agree, the combatants are not mercenaries nor should they be tortured. However, when you read all the exclusions, the "detainees" lose many protections afforded to uniformed troops. Detention for the duration of a conflict is expressly allowed. It is well worth it to read the entire Geneva convention. There are a lot of ifs, ands and buts. The Bush administraction is using the exclusions to full advantage.


From http://www.genevaconventions.org/


Convention I

For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Sets forth the protections for members of the armed forces who become wounded or sick.

Convention II

For the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Extends protections to wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of naval forces.

Convention III

Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva. Lists the rights of prisoners of war.

Convention IV

Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva. Deals with the protection of the civilian population in times of war.

Protocol I

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Extends protections to victims of wars against racist regimes and wars of self determination.

Protocol II

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Proection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. Extends protections to victims of internal conflicts in which an armed opposition controls enough territory to enable them to carry out sustained military operations.
--
Jim/Were Fan
http://ilcomps.com
Baen Book free SciFi CDs:
http://www.ilcomps.com/Baen/Baen_index.htm
User avatar
Trekkie
Initiate
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:13 am

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Trekkie »

Were_Fan wrote:
What Bush and others under his command (being the Commander in Chief) are doing there is just plain wrong.
I agree. War to please daddy or enrich the vice president's company with a no-bid contract is wrong.
Hmm ........ seeing as its no longer the vice presidents company, and the fact that halliburton is only making 2% profit on that no-bid contract(which, by the way, was the same thing clinton offered to halliburton during his presidency), I would highly disagree with the "make halliburton rich" conspiracy.
User avatar
Were_Fan
Katzh-dashi
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: NorAm, Earth, SOL, Milky Way, GalacZip 314-159-265-358-979

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Were_Fan »

Trekkie wrote:
Were_Fan wrote:
What Bush and others under his command (being the Commander in Chief) are doing there is just plain wrong.
I agree. War to please daddy or enrich the vice president's company with a no-bid contract is wrong.
Hmm ........ seeing as its no longer the vice presidents company, and the fact that halliburton is only making 2% profit on that no-bid contract(which, by the way, was the same thing clinton offered to halliburton during his presidency), I would highly disagree with the "make halliburton rich" conspiracy.
Cheney resigned from Haliburton for the duration of his VP term. He will most likely go back to Haliburton when the next VP is sworn in. Watch for a hefty bonus or salary for coming back to the company. ;-) Watch for Haliburton stock in his "blind" trust. Also, Cheney set up so-called deferred compensation plan before becoming VP. Cheney has received over $350,000 from Haliburton while supposedly being true to his oath as US VP. Do you still think there isn't a fire somewhere in all that smoke? Google
Cheney "blind trust"
for some real eye openers.
--
Jim/Were Fan
http://ilcomps.com
Baen Book free SciFi CDs:
http://www.ilcomps.com/Baen/Baen_index.htm
User avatar
Trekkie
Initiate
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:13 am

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Trekkie »

Were_Fan wrote:
Trekkie wrote:
Were_Fan wrote: I agree. War to please daddy or enrich the vice president's company with a no-bid contract is wrong.
Hmm ........ seeing as its no longer the vice presidents company, and the fact that halliburton is only making 2% profit on that no-bid contract(which, by the way, was the same thing clinton offered to halliburton during his presidency), I would highly disagree with the "make halliburton rich" conspiracy.
Cheney resigned from Haliburton for the duration of his VP term. He will most likely go back to Haliburton when the next VP is sworn in. Watch for a hefty bonus or salary for coming back to the company. ;-) Watch for Haliburton stock in his "blind" trust. Also, Cheney set up so-called deferred compensation plan before becoming VP. Cheney has received over $350,000 from Haliburton while supposedly being true to his oath as US VP. Do you still think there isn't a fire somewhere in all that smoke? Google
Cheney "blind trust"
for some real eye openers.
hmmmmm......
Wikipedia wrote: On the question of Cheney's deferred compensation from Halliburton, officials of the Bush-Cheney campaign said that before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes. The officials also said he had promised to donate to charity any after-tax profits he made from exercising his stock options. These steps are not unusual for corporate executives who enter government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburto ... heney_ties
User avatar
Were_Fan
Katzh-dashi
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: NorAm, Earth, SOL, Milky Way, GalacZip 314-159-265-358-979

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Were_Fan »

Trekkie wrote:
Were_Fan wrote:
Trekkie wrote: Hmm ........ seeing as its no longer the vice presidents company, and the fact that halliburton is only making 2% profit on that no-bid contract(which, by the way, was the same thing clinton offered to halliburton during his presidency), I would highly disagree with the "make halliburton rich" conspiracy.
Cheney resigned from Haliburton for the duration of his VP term. He will most likely go back to Haliburton when the next VP is sworn in. Watch for a hefty bonus or salary for coming back to the company. ;-) Watch for Haliburton stock in his "blind" trust. Also, Cheney set up so-called deferred compensation plan before becoming VP. Cheney has received over $350,000 from Haliburton while supposedly being true to his oath as US VP. Do you still think there isn't a fire somewhere in all that smoke? Google
Cheney "blind trust"
for some real eye openers.
hmmmmm......
Wikipedia wrote: On the question of Cheney's deferred compensation from Halliburton, officials of the Bush-Cheney campaign said that before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes. The officials also said he had promised to donate to charity any after-tax profits he made from exercising his stock options. These steps are not unusual for corporate executives who enter government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburto ... heney_ties
Yup, everbody else uses this loophole so it is OK for Cheney too! :-) He bought an insurance policy that guarantees Haliburton will keep paying him. Notice that the politicians are in no hurry to close the loophole.

Although Cheney promises to donate profits from his Haliburton options, he is under no obligation to do so. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that politicians are under no legal obligation to keep campaign promises.

Also, if you read further down through the Wiki article you quoted, Haliburton was routinely double billing for 20,000 military meals although serving only 10,000. Worse yet, many of the meals were (date) expired when served. That's a real nice no-bid contract there for the VPs "former" company. ;-)
--
Jim/Were Fan
http://ilcomps.com
Baen Book free SciFi CDs:
http://www.ilcomps.com/Baen/Baen_index.htm
J-Man5
Mi'Shara
Posts: 622
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:36 pm

Re: Political Discussions

Post by J-Man5 »

Will you two just shut the **** up about this whole mess. I see enough crap about it on the nightly news. I'd like to stay in my little fantasy world of Sennadar and Subjugation and whatever else Fel dreams up without reality creeping in and rearing its ugly head. I'm ready to cut the head off this ugly snake called politics. So for the rest of us please stop flaming at each other. Did you notice the four or five threads I started the other day? Do you know why I started them? It was to try and throw some people off the scent of this flame war that has started. Why not think of some massive unanswered questions for Fel about Sennadar, Pyrosia, The Core, Earth and the Faey, or anything else but politics.

Thanks,

J-Man5
Spec8472
Weavespinner
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 12:00 am

Re: Political Discussions

Post by Spec8472 »

J-Man5 wrote:Will you two just shut the **** up about this whole mess.
You're free to ignore this thread - it's not mandatory reading.

But anyway, I'll lock the thread - since it's seem to have run its course anyway.
J-Man5 wrote:Did you notice the four or five threads I started the other day?
Yeah, I did - interesting reading, thanks for contributing :)
Locked