Thread: Website Set up for IMPEACHMENT VOTES

KIDS, BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING!

Originally Posted by JZ

If torture doesn't apply to The United States and treatment of prisoners, why are U.S. military people in prison for torturing Abu Ghraib prisoners?

It's always a wonderful day in "Bushbaby Land!"

Army Report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na ... -25-04.pdf


The Washington Post

The Chronology of Abu Ghraib

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/wo ... 050904.htm

JZ, did you read that question before you posted it? It makes no sense. Given that, I will try to answer what I believe is your question:

Torture is wrong, and we shouldn't be doing it. Period. But until the President can be demonstrated to be actually ordering torture as opposed to it being a matter of a failure of military discipline or bad decision-making in the field, the idea that the President can be held criminally responsible is just goofy.

But your SPECIFIC claim was that George Bush was violating the Geneva Conventions. That claim was flat out wrong on numerous counts:

1. Bush would only be directly responsbile for such violations of an applicable treaty IF there was a directive or order from him as Commander in Chief to carry out the torures or IF it could be shown that he was aware of the tortures and did nothing about it. In fact, there have been numerous prosecutions of those responsbile for the torture, so that blows the "did nothing about it" condition out of the water.

2. The Geneva Conventions would have to apply to the detainees in question for your argument to have traction. They do not. Specifically, the GC applies to military regulars from a nation or government. The provisions do not apply to terrorists, members of rogue organizations engaging in criminal quasi-military conduct, or to insurgents whose actions are confined to an internal insurgency within the borders of a state. These disctinctions are set forth in Convention III, Part I, Art. 4.

The Bush Administrations Payroll must be nice...


http://www.newyorker.com/online/content ... lineonly01

Under the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush Administration decided not to abide by in their treatment of the Guantánamo prisoners, they would have had to do things very differently. The 1949 Geneva Convention requires the establishment of a “competent tribunal” to determine, on a case-by-case basis, if there is any doubt, whether a detainee should be designated a P.O.W. But when U.S. forces captured Al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers in late 2001 and early 2002, in Afghanistan, they were never given individual status-review hearings. As a result, critics say, a number of non-combatants were swept up along with them. If Geneva was followed the U.S.-held prisoners would not have had to answer questions beyond their name, rank, and serial number. In most cases, Geneva disallows any harsher treatment for prisoners who are non-cooperative. So the whole system of rewards and punishments that has been devised at Guantánamo would be out of bounds. Geneva also specifically bars coercive interrogations. And it also bars medical personnel from conducting “experiments” on prisoners.

We shouldn't even be in Iraq torturing anyone. But because of Bush's PHONEY EVIDENCE we're there!


The Geneva Convention

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4

1. 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:

Originally Posted by JZ

We shouldn't even be in Iraq torturing anyone. But because of Bush's PHONEY EVIDENCE we're there!


The Geneva Convention

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4

1. 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:

Apparently your reading comprehension is as poor as your reasoning. Re-read what you posted, paying particular attention to the portion in green. The "militias" in question are those that form part of a REGULAR ARMY, as when our National Guard is called up and deployed. They don't include criminals dressed as civilians and hiding amongst the populace to commit acts of sabotage and terror.

Had you not chose to EDIT OUT the portion of paragraph 2 that proves that you're full of use horsefeed, you would have seen that this is what it says in its entirety:

(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.

Shameful, JZ, just shameful. When you are losing an argument you find it preferable to attempt to LIE by conveniently EDITING the provision in question to suit your BS.

I'm getting really tired of people like you who are so irrationally dedicated to their delusions that they can justify being personally dishonest to achieve their ends. That sort of stuff sickens me, JZ, and you should be ashamed not only of your own self-delusion, but of the fact that you saw fit to attempt to mislead others.

Folks, I hope that most of you are paying attention here, because this sort of attempted dishonesty in the course of what should be meaningful and factual discussion is what mars far too many political discussion sites. Where as a people did we decide that was okay to lie your arse off when it suits your needs? I guess this is the legacy of of Dick Nixon's "I am not a crook" and William Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of "is" is." Again, its just disgusting and shameful.

Originally Posted by JZ

It never ceases to amaze me that the “Bush Lovers” who claim to know so much and will defend Bush43 to their dying day. That they seem to over look certain well publicized facts. I suppose they would think differently if they weren't on the Bush Administrations Payroll or the La Raza Payroll.

”

And here we go again with the name calling. Anyone on this site who doesn't support impeachment, is a bush-bot, bush-backer, bush-lover, or whatever the term of the day is. I,for one, am thoroughly tired of it. Stick to the facts, stick to the debate. Do you think it increases your credibility when you personally attack people?

Originally Posted by anniealone

Originally Posted by JZ

It never ceases to amaze me that the “Bush Lovers” who claim to know so much and will defend Bush43 to their dying day. That they seem to over look certain well publicized facts. I suppose they would think differently if they weren't on the Bush Administrations Payroll or the La Raza Payroll.

”

And here we go again with the name calling. Anyone on this site who doesn't support impeachment, is a bush-bot, bush-backer, bush-lover, or whatever the term of the day is. I,for one, am thoroughly tired of it. Stick to the facts, stick to the debate. Do you think it increases your credibility when you personally attack people?

Anniealone...I'll second that.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

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.

Originally Posted by anniealone

Originally Posted by JZ

It never ceases to amaze me that the “Bush Lovers” who claim to know so much and will defend Bush43 to their dying day. That they seem to over look certain well publicized facts. I suppose they would think differently if they weren't on the Bush Administrations Payroll or the La Raza Payroll.

”

And here we go again with the name calling. Anyone on this site who doesn't support impeachment, is a bush-bot, bush-backer, bush-lover, or whatever the term of the day is. I,for one, am thoroughly tired of it. Stick to the facts, stick to the debate. Do you think it increases your credibility when you personally attack people?

What's wrong with being called a Bush Lover? Don't you love your President?

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by anniealone

Originally Posted by JZ

It never ceases to amaze me that the “Bush Lovers” who claim to know so much and will defend Bush43 to their dying day. That they seem to over look certain well publicized facts. I suppose they would think differently if they weren't on the Bush Administrations Payroll or the La Raza Payroll.

”

And here we go again with the name calling. Anyone on this site who doesn't support impeachment, is a bush-bot, bush-backer, bush-lover, or whatever the term of the day is. I,for one, am thoroughly tired of it. Stick to the facts, stick to the debate. Do you think it increases your credibility when you personally attack people?

Anniealone...I'll second that.

It's OK to love Bush or Hiltler or Custer if you like. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion.