- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 18,930
- Reaction score
- 1,040
- Location
- HBCA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Go read Article 51 of the UN Charter if you think it was legal.Right, and the rule of law is not on your side, everything since the outbreak of the war was done constitutionally. Correct, but since laws were not broken there is no justification for the actions of the far left anti-war movement, hence, they are exclusively Un-American. You'll have to do more than empty emoting here, what damages are you talking about? Last I checked the war hasn't damaged us personally or internally. Bull ****, the constitution does not allow for an international body to try the president of the United States, especially since the constitution was not violated in any way, shape, form, or logical stretch of the imagination. Also, we deal with our own affairs, I don't care how many pro "international law" nations are butt hurt that we don't give a damn about their lack of authority in the matter, the constitution must be upheld.
And if you don't think we have been damaged because of this war, you must like the current economy.
Then you missed that whole part of it doesn't apply to our constitutional war powers, and even if it did, the UN is worthless, they wouldn't even hold Saddam accountable for his transgressions. What makes you think they would try to enforce anything against the U.S. even if it was valid?Go read Article 51 of the UN Charter if you think it was legal.
If you think the war caused this economy, then there are alot of things you need to read up on. First, learn the basics of what makes the U.S. economic engine run, second, learn how the wrong people over the past century or so choked it off, third what unnecessary and unconstitutional spending has been doing to it since the early 1900's, third leaving the gold standard, etc. The economy we have now has nothing whatsoever to do with the war.And if you don't think we have been damaged because of this war, you must like the current economy.
Calls are getting more, not less, obvious in the public spectrum. So the question is, will we see prosecutions of public officials and are they justified?
To me, it is not a left vs right issue. This isn't just about Bush/Cheney. It is an issue of the highest ethical implications. It is not about revenge, it is about justice. Our public leaders must be held responsible for criminal actions. We must set a precedent that politicians are not above the law, regardless of their motivations.
2.For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
(viii) Taking of hostages.
(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;
(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;
(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;
(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;
(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;
(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;
(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.
Correct.At this time, there is no credible legally-admissable evidence that either President Bush or Vice President Cheney deliberately and knowingly sought to evade international obligations arising from the Laws of War.Reasonable approach, there were missteps along with good decisions in the entire process, but such happens in any administration especially during a war. The SCOTUS decisions are I feel more of a matter of opinion, but some were pretty attrocious.Bad policy choices, ill-informed decisions, a poorly-designed tribunal process (since addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court), unpopular decisions, etc., do not constitute war crimes.I fully agree with this.Such matters are beyond the scope of the Laws of War. Instead, they properly rest in the electoral process and other domestic political machinery. Given that neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney will be serving in office beginning January 20, 2009, the best one can reasonably expect is to learn more about the decisionmaking process, assess what went right and wrong in their judgment, learn from the experience, etc.
You have got to be kidding!No. In my opinion, from everything I have seen, there simply are not legitimate grounds for such prosecutions. To borrow from the Rome Statute, which encapsulates the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions that define the paramters of war crimes, the following conditions need to be satisfied:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make you eat these words.2.For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing; Massacre's at Haditha and Ischagi
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; Using WP in Fallujah
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; Using cluster bombs in urban areas
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; Assault on Fallujah
(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; The Awakening
(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; Military Commissions Act
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; Renditions
(viii) Taking of hostages. Italy charges 5 CIA agents with kidnapping
(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; Bombing hospitals
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; Checkpoint shootings
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; US snipers shooting ambulances
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Using depleted uranium munitions
(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives; Wedding party bombed by a Predator drone in Afghanistan
(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; There is a recent video (see "Iraq war is Just" thread) that shows un-armed belligerants being executed by a helicopter gunship AFTER they laid down their weapons
(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury; I know of no incident where we have done this
(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; 5 million Iraqis are now homeless and living as refugee's in the desert
(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives; Again, bombing hospitals
(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons; The beatings at GITMO
(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; Waterboarding
(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given; US snipers shooting Iraqis holding white flags
(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; Building the largest US embassy in the world in Bagdad Green Zone
(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party; US position on "unlawful combatants" in violation of the Geneva Conventions
(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war; Shia death squads coming into power on the back of US tanks
(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul, etc.
(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons; Using depleted uranium munitions
(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices; I know of no incident where we have done this
(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions; Again, depleted uranium munitions
(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123; Using the napalm-like substance "Willie Pete" in Fallujah
(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; The abuses at Abu Ghraib
(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions; The marine charged with raping an Iraq 14 year old
(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations; We are not guilty of this one either
(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law; Bombing hospitals, shooting ambulances, refusing access to medical personel in Fallujah
(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions; Shutting off basic utilities in Fallujah if residents did not hand over insurgents
(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities. We didn't enlist children, we just tortured them at Abu Ghraib
Give me a break!At this time, there is no credible legally-admissable evidence that either President Bush or Vice President Cheney deliberately and knowingly sought to evade international obligations arising from the Laws of War. Bad policy choices, ill-informed decisions, a poorly-designed tribunal process (since addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court), unpopular decisions, etc., do not constitute war crimes. Such matters are beyond the scope of the Laws of War. Instead, they properly rest in the electoral process and other domestic political machinery. Given that neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney will be serving in office beginning January 20, 2009, the best one can reasonably expect is to learn more about the decisionmaking process, assess what went right and wrong in their judgment, learn from the experience, etc.
Oh but it does. Our Congress ratified that treaty. And that makes it part of our Constitution. So we broke our own law as well. And coming from a nation that is based on the rule of law, that makes us a bunch of ****ing hypocrits!Then you missed that whole part of it doesn't apply to our constitutional war powers, and even if it did, the UN is worthless, they wouldn't even hold Saddam accountable for his transgressions. What makes you think they would try to enforce anything against the U.S. even if it was valid?
You think $12 billion a month for the last 6 years doesn't have an effect on our economy? Get your head out of the sand!If you think the war caused this economy, then there are alot of things you need to read up on. First, learn the basics of what makes the U.S. economic engine run, second, learn how the wrong people over the past century or so choked it off, third what unnecessary and unconstitutional spending has been doing to it since the early 1900's, third leaving the gold standard, etc. The economy we have now has nothing whatsoever to do with the war.
Nope, sorry, a treaty is only good up until it interferes with the duties of the U.S. constitution, a treaty cannot invalidate U.S. law, anything that would would be null and void in any proper court of law, because the agreement couldn't be legally made.Oh but it does. Our Congress ratified that treaty. And that makes it part of our Constitution. So we broke our own law as well. And coming from a nation that is based on the rule of law, that makes us a bunch of ****ing hypocrits!
Of course it effects an economy, the economy goes up, as it does in all wars because of military needs. Care to adress why the economy has underperformed? Do you debate that the nineteen hundreds were the set up to this mess? If so, why?You think $12 billion a month for the last 6 years doesn't have an effect on our economy? Get your head out of the sand!
Nope, sorry, a treaty is only good up until it interferes with the duties of the U.S. constitution, a treaty cannot invalidate U.S. law, anything that would would be null and void in any proper court of law, because the agreement couldn't be legally made.
A treaty is one thing. International law is quite another.
Besides, if Bush didn't think he broke the law he wouldn't have tried to write his own immunity into a new law.
International law doesn't apply, and a treaty cannot be honored over the constitution(standard contract law), so they both are similar in that neither can apply. That was easy.A treaty is one thing. International law is quite another.
Last I checked he has followed protocol.Besides, if Bush didn't think he broke the law he wouldn't have tried to write his own immunity into a new law.
International law doesn't apply, ... That was easy.
International law applies whenever... international laws are broken! :roll:
As is the case here.
Last I checked he has followed protocol.
Considering your illogical interpretation of laws, you'll forgive me if I don't take your word on this.
What's "easy" is owning you on this.
Apparently not, since our Supreme Court justices have a hard time applying it in court cases.International law applies whenever... international laws are broken! :roll:
As is the case here.
Contract law and constitutional are logical, which is why I apply them to the intent of their wording.Considering your illogical interpretation of laws, you'll forgive me if I don't take your word on this.
Whatever you've gotta tell yourself, emotion is trumped by logic, and all I've seen from you is emotion.What's "easy" is owning you on this.
International law doesn't apply, and a treaty cannot be honored over the constitution(standard contract law), so they both are similar in that neither can apply. That was easy.
It becomes common for walls of apathy to fall in heaps upon the earth with America is backed by piles of broken ones.
You don't read the Constitution much, do ya? Any treaty our Congress ratifies becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land. And once its a law, it stays a law, until Congress formally repeals it. Which, in this case, they never did.Nope, sorry, a treaty is only good up until it interferes with the duties of the U.S. constitution, a treaty cannot invalidate U.S. law, anything that would would be null and void in any proper court of law, because the agreement couldn't be legally made.
This war is one of the causes for the downturn in the economy. The main reason for the downturn, is the Republican party. Starting with Ronald Reagan and Phil Gramm, we started taking away all the safeguards (Glass-Stiegal) Roosevelt put in after the first Wall St. collapse. Then Bill Clinton jumped in and kept the deregulating ball rolling during his Administration. This happens to be one of the issues I have with ole Bill. Then Bush came in and put the nail in the coffin. I realize both sides have blood on their hands over this, but it was the Republicans who had virtually 12 years of absolute power where they could of done something good for Americans, but they didn't. They went the opposite way and catered to the corporate oligarchy.Of course it effects an economy, the economy goes up, as it does in all wars because of military needs. Care to adress why the economy has underperformed? Do you debate that the nineteen hundreds were the set up to this mess? If so, why?
LOL I know that, but cannot ratify any treaty that interferes with constitutional law, by contract law standards that would make anything along the lines of linternational law inadmissable, what part of that don't you get?You don't read the Constitution much, do ya? Any treaty our Congress ratifies becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land. And once its a law, it stays a law, until Congress formally repeals it. Which, in this case, they never did.
You're a liberal partisan, so that answer was completely expected, and completely incorrect. Read the actual causes of this problem and then get back to me, I know it's gonna be awhile since that happens since there is over a centuries worth of damage, but I'm patient.This war is one of the causes for the downturn in the economy. The main reason for the downturn, is the Republican party. Starting with Ronald Reagan and Phil Gramm, we started taking away all the safeguards (Glass-Stiegal) Roosevelt put in after the first Wall St. collapse. Then Bill Clinton jumped in and kept the deregulating ball rolling during his Administration. This happens to be one of the issues I have with ole Bill. Then Bush came in and put the nail in the coffin. I realize both sides have blood on their hands over this, but it was the Republicans who had virtually 12 years of absolute power where they could of done something good for Americans, but they didn't. They went the opposite way and catered to the corporate oligarchy.
Defense spending IS constitutionally protected, AND mandated. If you want to complain about money, complain about what spending the constitution DOES NOT protect or mandate.Getting back to the war, have you looked at how much money goes to the Pentagon each year. Almost $900 billion dollars. And that's obscene. Which is why I go ballistic when I see you war-hawks post a bunch of crap! Enough is enough! Remember this, you are in the minority. The majority of American's are against this war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK_Forever
International law doesn't apply, and a treaty cannot be honored over the constitution(standard contract law), so they both are similar in that neither can apply. That was easy.
It becomes common for walls of apathy to fall in heaps upon the earth with America is backed by piles of broken ones.
That's not my post.
Sorry, probably something with the quote brackets.That's not my post.
What the hell do you know about contract law? You can't even use this websites software right! You keep debating yourself, or responding to yourself, or quoting someone with your name as the heading, or someone else's name as the heading...LOL I know that, but cannot ratify any treaty that interferes with constitutional law, by contract law standards that would make anything along the lines of linternational law inadmissable, what part of that don't you get?
I'm the most non-partisan poster in this forum. You are so far to the extreme fanatical right, you consider John Birch a lefty.You're a liberal partisan, so that answer was completely expected, and completely incorrect. Read the actual causes of this problem and then get back to me, I know it's gonna be awhile since that happens since there is over a centuries worth of damage, but I'm patient.
Not the amount, which is ****ing obscene. But I wouldn't expect a war-hawk, who gets his ya-ya's out bombing innocent women and children with Predator drones, would see that.Defense spending IS constitutionally protected, AND mandated. If you want to complain about money, complain about what spending the constitution DOES NOT protect or mandate.
Not the amount, which is ****ing obscene. But I wouldn't expect a war-hawk, who gets his ya-ya's out bombing innocent women and children with Predator drones, would see that.
If it's too much for ya........get ****in' educated!Sorry, probably something with the quote brackets.
To bad nobody loves your ****in' lies!Gotta love you attacking the troops day in and day out. Have you no shame?
:roll:
To bad nobody loves your ****in' lies!
Okay, so I wasn't paying attention to a line, that makes the fact that I am a licensed insurance agent who deals with contracts and contract law no less relevent.What the hell do you know about contract law? You can't even use this websites software right! You keep debating yourself, or responding to yourself, or quoting someone with your name as the heading, or someone else's name as the heading...
Treaties are contracts, period, no contract in bad faith can be honored. Bad faith in this case would be any treaty that inhibits constitutional law, but keep deluding yourself into thinking that treaties trump the constitution or invalidate some part of it just because they are signed.Once Congress ratifies a treaty, it's not just international law, it's American law as well. What part of this do you not understand? Oh, I forgot, everything! You don't understand ****in' nuttin'.
Right, that's why I see you attacking the right less than the left.:roll:I'm the most non-partisan poster in this forum. You are so far to the extreme fanatical right, you consider John Birch a lefty.
That sounds like a personal attack to me. I am not a warhawk, simply stating that defense spending goes back into the economy via increases in production, but hey, if you feel better shooting the messenger go ahead, it's not my fault you hold on to these notions that are provably wrong.Not the amount, which is ****ing obscene. But I wouldn't expect a war-hawk, who gets his ya-ya's out bombing innocent women and children with Predator drones, would see that.
Oh, and I am well educated thanks, got the degree, awards, and IQ to prove it, but thanks for playing.If it's too much for ya........get ****in' educated!
Right, that's why I see you attacking the right less than the left.:roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?