View Poll Results: What is GITMO about?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • GITMO is a fine prison.

    26 40.63%
  • GITMO is a fine GULAG.

    10 15.63%
  • The UN is lying.

    23 35.94%
  • GITMO reflects contemporary USA mores.

    21 32.81%
  • GITMO upholds the finest standards of USA Justice.

    21 32.81%
  • GITMO is a continuing embarrassment.

    27 42.19%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 285

Thread: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

  1. #71
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    If we're going to do this then we might as well make it simple as hell. Use a nuke. That will get the worlds attention right away and at the same time let everyone know that if they F*** with the US then there WILL be consequences.

    If you're not going to use a nuke however then taking prisoners is a natural part of any war. There were very few armies in history that did not take prisoners. And usually those that lead them did not last long.
    You're sounding more and more like the "debaters" at stormfront. Use a nuke to get people's attention? Is that a good enough reason to use nukes?

  2. #72
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    If we're going to do this then we might as well make it simple as hell. Use a nuke. That will get the worlds attention right away and at the same time let everyone know that if they F*** with the US then there WILL be consequences.

    If you're not going to use a nuke however then taking prisoners is a natural part of any war. There were very few armies in history that did not take prisoners. And usually those that lead them did not last long.
    You remind me of my crazy uncle who believed we should solve the problems of the Middle East by simply leveling it.

  3. #73
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Customary international law, which the Geneva Conventions codifed, normally allowed for non-uniformed combatants to be executed summarily.

    Why? Uniforms make it easy to distinguish who you're supposed to be shooting at. If you can't, you have little choice but to a) shoot everyone, or b) give up.

    Is that the world you prefer?


    That was absed on wars between nations, in which there were uniforms to wear. This is nothing like that. they are not soliders in any formal army, representing any nation.

    That said, none of that excuses declaring anyone outside the law. Those who we were allowed to execute were people who belonged to a uniform, and broke the rule s by taking it off. And even then, there was a legal process. So, the choice you present is false because 1) we are not fighting soliders in the army of any nation and 2) not wearing a uniform, even among soliders belonging to the army of a nation doesn't remove rule of law. Here we've tried to remove all rule of law. That is not only immoral, but anti-American.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #74
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That was absed on wars between nations, in which there were uniforms to wear. This is nothing like that. they are not soliders in any formal army, representing any nation.
    Then how do you claim the Geneva Conventions apply?

    (They, in fact, say they don't in situations like that, by the way.)


    That said, none of that excuses declaring anyone outside the law. Those who we were allowed to execute were people who belonged to a uniform, and broke the rule s by taking it off. And even then, there was a legal process. So, the choice you present is false because 1) we are not fighting soliders in the army of any nation and 2) not wearing a uniform, even among soliders belonging to the army of a nation doesn't remove rule of law. Here we've tried to remove all rule of law. That is not only immoral, but anti-American.
    You misunderstand. They're not outside the law. The "law" allows for them to be summarily shot, despite the post-2001 interpretations that people have pulled out of thin air.

    And those recent interpretations are nothing but a suicide pact at worst, or an instruction manual for others to conduct unlawful warfare with the firm support of western "human rights" groups at best.

    Strange world you want to live in.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #75
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Then how do you claim the Geneva Conventions apply?

    (They, in fact, say they don't in situations like that, by the way.)
    I'm not stuck on the GC being the end all. In fact, as this never ends, saying you'll hold them until the end of the war is silly. I'm saying follow rule of law, with rights.


    You misunderstand. They're not outside the law. The "law" allows for them to be summarily shot, despite the post-2001 interpretations that people have pulled out of thin air.

    And those recent interpretations are nothing but a suicide pact at worst, or an instruction manual for others to conduct unlawful warfare with the firm support of western "human rights" groups at best.

    Strange world you want to live in.
    They are allowed to be shot because they are outside the law. There is a legal process that is followed.

    I don't understand your thin air comment at all, but if you'll explain, I'll respond.


    I will say, this isn't about what they do, but about what we do and value. If we value law and human rights, we behave like we value law and human rights.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #76
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,618

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    I marvel...truly...I do.

    Candidate Obama promised soft fluffy bunnies and hugs and his supporters believed it. And good on them. Its always nice to think of the world in such happy ways. Demonize Bush for the violation of rights, both US citizen and global citizens. Promise terrorists constitutional protections. promise to right all wrongs. That was then.

    PRESIDENT Obama has not only continued but enhanced the Bush policies on fighting terrorism. Rather than close down GITMO he expanded black ops prisons. He increased the number of individuals detained. He denied them constitutional rights. He denies American citizens rights to privacy with regard to cell phone communications. He has increased the Homeland security presence. President Obama is dealing with the real world that candidate Obama had the luxury to avoid.

    What is amazing is the number of people that still cling to the promises and fairy tale world of Candidate Obama. Its good to be an ideologue I suppose. Its wonderful to wish that there werent bad people in the world with evil intent. The real world...that fluffy bunny is more like the creature at the mouth of Caerbannog. I for one am grateful that President Obama is currently leading the war on terror and not Candidate Obama.

  7. #77
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm not stuck on the GC being the end all. In fact, as this never ends, saying you'll hold them until the end of the war is silly. I'm saying follow rule of law, with rights.
    I don't think you could actually cite an applicable rule of law and the rights thereunto appertaining.

    Hint: US criminal law and the Constitution aren't it.


    They are allowed to be shot because they are outside the law. There is a legal process that is followed.

    I don't understand your thin air comment at all, but if you'll explain, I'll respond.
    The "air" comment? Simply that there was a sudden push for entirely novel interpretations of the usual "international law" which applied. Like yours, below.


    I will say, this isn't about what they do, but about what we do and value. If we value law and human rights, we behave like we value law and human rights.
    Then you really have no idea what the laws of warfare are about. They have always been about countries agreeing with each other about how they'll conduct themselves with each other. They've never been about hamstringing a nation against an enemy which won't conform to that code of conduct.

    Which is not to say that we should consider ourselves licensed to behave like savages. But the idea that someone who doesn't conform to the laws of war should have the "rights" of someone who does is just plain asinine. And suicidal.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #78
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    They have always been about countries agreeing with each other about how they'll conduct themselves with each other. They've never been about hamstringing a nation against an enemy which won't conform to that code of conduct.
    I tend to agree with many other things you've said about the GC. It's a sticky wicket where to classify terrorists without doubt or opinion. We all know they are enemies but exactly how to classify them? I'm more likely to treat them as spies than anything else - at least, that's the one historic role they can easily be pigeon-holed into. Even that's note a final answer, though, as spies don't usually act together as a quasi-military force. "Spontaneous combatants" is another possibility but that doesn't really fit, either. It's just a tough call.

    But ...
    CONVENTION OF JULY 27, 1929, RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR
    TITLE VIII. EXECUTION OF THE CONVENTION.
    SECTION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
    ARTICLE 82.
    The provisions of the present Convention must be respected by the High Contracting Parties under all circumstances.

    In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.
    (emphasis added)
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 02-02-12 at 04:11 PM.

  9. #79
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I tend to agree with many other things you've said about the GC. It's a sticky wicket where to classify terrorists without doubt or opinion. We all know they are enemies but exactly how to classify them? I'm more likely to treat them as spies than anything else - at least, that's the one historic role they can easily be pigeon-holed into. Even that's note a final answer, though, as spies don't usually act together as a quasi-military force. "Spontaneous combatants" is another possibility but that doesn't really fit, either. It's just a tough call.

    But ... (emphasis added)
    Yes. Between the belligerents who are parties.

    Nation A and B are parties. Nation C is not.

    A and B are fighting each other. The provisions are in effect. B and C are fighting each other. The provisions are not.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #80
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I tend to agree with many other things you've said about the GC. It's a sticky wicket where to classify terrorists without doubt or opinion. We all know they are enemies but exactly how to classify them?
    That's one of the things the Geneva Conventions -- and customary "laws" of warfare -- were intended to prevent.

    If all the combatants are in uniform, you don't have this problem.

    If the combatants don't hide among civilian populations, you don't have to bomb civilian populations.

    If the combatants don't stockpile weapons in schools, you don't have to bomb schools.

    And so on.

    When they don't follow these "laws," you have to do nasty things. But to hamstring yourself against such an enemy is to effect your own defeat.

    War is terrible. Rewarding those who "play by the rules" and reserving dire consequences for those who don't can make it a bit less terrible.

    But if you treat everyone as though they're playing by the rules, there's no reason why they should bother -- there's no penalty for being savages. Thus, savagery ensues.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 02-02-12 at 04:22 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •