Geneva Conventions
 

It was mentioned somewhere earlier that the US has said "Fuck the Geneva Conventions". That's stayed with me, and I was watching Anderson Cooper the other day on CNN, and he had one of the Soldier's Attorneys' on, and she said that George Bush signed into law (in 2002) something that says, in effect, that these people (the detainees) are not subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Is she referring to the patriot act I?

I found an article from January 2002 about Gitmo, and reading it now just saddens me.

Link

and quote:
I'm going to look for the Patriot Act I and II and see what it says in regards to this.

*edit: a link to the Geneva Conventions: http://www.genevaconventions.org/
a link to the Patriot Act I (2001) as passed by Congress:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla...riot_bill.html

In light of our current Gay Marriage debate, I found this interesting.

From the Patriot Act I: (empahsis mine)

I'm not certain, but I think it's not in the Patriot Act. I think it wasn't even a law so much as a declaration. IIRC, he just claimed executive authority, and said that Guantanimo was outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

“The proposed cages are a scandal,” said Fellner. “The United States should not be transporting detainees to Cuba until it can provide decent shelter

Just shoot them. It would save time, money, space, and WTF while we're at it, MY OXYGEN!

These prisoners are not there for Jwalking. And let's face it, a metal cage is probably more comfortable than the cave they were living in before.

MSNBC- The Roots of Torture

An interesting side note here is that Alberto Gonzales, who ultimately signed off on this, was going to be George Bush's nominee as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. A funny note is that there were conservatives who did not consider him conservative enough!

Well, they got their wish. There is no way he can be approved now unless Congress becomes %75 Republican in the next 4 years.

Get real. The people that wrote this crap certainly didn't. As was mentioned before, the US is the only one to have at least tried to go by this document since it was signed but all in all the language is about as realistic as utopia. Don't humiliate or degrade the prisioners, sheesh.:rolleyes:

Correct. In fact, many of them aren't there for any crime whatsoever!

If you would just kill them, you wouldn't have to worry about hurting their feelings and making them feel sad.

Then why are they there? I don't deny that there are mistakes made, but get real. This is not a prison full of innocent by-standers. They are there for a reason.

What happened to the good old days, when you go to war - make sure that no stone sits atop another when you leave... That might be a little severe. Strike that one.

They are there for many reasons.

a) (obviously) some are guilty of crimes
b) some resisted US invasion of their country
c) some were neighbors or relatives of people in groups a or b.
d) when bounties were being paid, it was an easy way to get rid of someone you didn't like. Just turn 'em in to US troops.

In any case, it's hard to nail down precisely what they have done when the administration refuses to accuse them of anything, and resists ant effort to put them on any sort of trial.

But you and
Senator Inhofe are correct. It is extremely unlikely that they were picked up for jaywalking.

Actually many are in those prisons for far less. One thing that the right wing "we love to torture in the name of the flag" Americans must first admit. Human rights means nothing when they are so busy saving us from ourselves. So busy that they cannot even bother to act on three blunt warning of an impending bin Laden attack - because it did not conform with their doctrine. With Guantanamo tactics in use at Abu Ghraid, then 90% of those prisoners are innocent - which is why so many were being routinely released after 3 months without charges.

This is the same president who the Norwegian foreign minister said would destroy the Oslo Accords. He did so because the Oslo Accords were wrong - according to administration rhetoric. The same Sec of Defense that said repeatedly and quite publically that there was no looting in Iraq. At what point does an extremist mentality admit there is something seriously wrong and corrupt with the George Jr leadership? Just because they are right wing extremists who believe they are god's choosen administration - does that make them right?

Just another in the long list of 'guilty' terrorists held under the Guantanamo Bay concept of the Geneva Convention. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. How many open acts of anti-Americanism does it take to see these leaders as evil scum - just like the crook Richard Nixon. Guess what baby. Power corrupts. And with no one - not the Supreme Court and not even in the Cellar - complaining about Guantanamo Bay, then the Geneva Convention was long disposed of by this administration. Only tonight on PBS, another administration spokesman (an ambassador) was saying that we should be scrapping parts of the Geneva Convention because it no longer applies. America is run by god's choosen president. Therefore all those prisoners must be guilty of something - like being Arab. Being Arab proves we need not abide by the Geneva Convention. Just that this administration is not ready to admit that yet.

At what point do you realize that right wing extremists can be so easily corrupted. Just because they are right wing and god's choosen few makes them right? First remove any statement from the administrartion and their extremist "we don't need to read the long posts because we already know" supporters. The overwhelming majority is now suggesting most all those prisoners are not guilty. Only right wing extremists would fear to have rule of law apply to those prisoners. They are just as guilty as Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. More extremist rhetoric proven only because it conforms to right wing extremist doctrine of preemption. Get a life. This administration has now put so many lies and spin up that nothing they say can be trusted without reams on confirmation. Clearly the Geneva Convention must be amended to conform to Guantanamo Bay. God's choosen said so.

The short response so that George Jr could even read it. They are there because no reason exists to ask any questions. Just throw anyone who looks strange in torture prisons - such as Reuter Journalists. They are reporting the news. They must be evil. Torture them because that is the concept advocated by the George Jr administration.

Reality. Guantanamo Bay says throw everyone in jail. That way we might catch one bad guy. Clearly the laws and Geneva Convention are wrong and evil. This is a different war. Therefore we must destroy our principles - just like Westmoreland repeatedly said in Vietnam.

Laws only protect the bad guys. After all, there are only good guys and bad guys. Anyone who is not a good guy must be guilty. Torture him till he admits his guilt. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition - which is what we are talking about. Prisons full of innocent by-standers (90% is the published figure) and a few guilty ones.

[quote]Originally posted by tw
[b] America is run by god's choosen president.

Have you ever met someone that came up with a clever phrase and then drove it straight into the ground? Next time i see tw remark about "god's chosen president" I am going to have to figure out whether to gouge out my eyeballs or be satisfied in only pulling all my hair out. Come up with something new, already. I have read your posts and you are capable of much more than the same damn phrase repeated over and over and over and over... get the point?

[quote]Originally posted by depmats
[b]How about "There is but one true God and George is his prophet"?

Let's say you are a 1000% correct in your assumption that every single detainee is one of Satan's emissary's from hell. Let's say that we are indeed on the side of the angels. If we are the "good guys" shouldn't we at least act like the good guys? What does the US stand for in your brainwashed little mind? Human rights? Democracy? The right to a fair trial and due process of the law? How can we as a nation espouse these ideals and then throw them down the toilet while the entire world watches? Apparently you have no problem with this. Might makes right and "arbeit macht frei." I have read your posts and you seem incapable of much more than the same damn brainless thug response to the issue over and over and over and over... get the point?

[quote]Originally posted by marichiko


How about "There is but one true God and George is his prophet"?

Let's say you are a 1000% correct in your assumption that every single detainee is one of Satan's emissary's from hell. Let's say that we are indeed on the side of the angels. If we are the "good guys" shouldn't we at least act like the good guys? What does the US stand for in your brainwashed little mind? Human rights? Democracy? The right to a fair trial and due process of the law? How can we as a nation espouse these ideals and then throw them down the toilet while the entire world watches? Apparently you have no problem with this. Might makes right and "arbeit macht frei." I have read your posts and you seem incapable of much more than the same damn brainless thug response to the issue over and over and over and over... get the point? [/QUOTE

Because I don't buy into the idea that the majority of prisoners in Gitmo are innocent of wrongdoing, I am automatically a brainless disciple of George? Emissaries of Satan? Don't think I through that one out there either. I think I also stated before that I am sure there ARE individuals who are detained who are not guilty of any crime or act of violence against our troops. But their presence, although unfortunate, does not dash my hopes for the future upon the rocks.
If you have read my posts before you know that the rights and privileges that concern me are those of law-abiding, American citizens first, those who have stood by the US second, and those who oppose the US a distant third. Just because you passionately disagree with my view of the world, don't assume I am some brainwashed neo-con. I happen to disagree with Bush on more than I agree with, but if we are in a state of war - I believe the only way to successfully prosecute the war is to go at it 100% and if some people get bent out of shape, well tough shit. The real world doesn't fit into a nice touchy-feely package. Most of the world has not liked the US for a very long time, this is nothing new. They stand by and support the US when there is a benefit to them and point at us for being the world bullies when our actions aren't what they prefer. It's politics.

To be the good guy you always have to play with one hand tied being your back, comes with the territory, because unrestrained power always turns to evil.

depmats your attitudes are an embarrassment to your nation..how is is when I hear you say I hear the dour tune of deutschland uber alles floating thru the air

Again I see this assertion that America is the only country which has stuck to the geneva convention since it was signed .....It was fallacious the first time I saw it, it's fallacious now.

i refuse to apologize for not being a panzy globalist.

Fine then, find your own planet, because people here on this one are sick of your type

Har! Here Here. *loud applause*

How about apologizing for being a knee jerk "patriot" then? I found myself in more arguments with people in other countries when I traveled overseas because of Americans with attitudes like yours. It got old.

Ever take a look at the Declaration of Independence? You know, that "pansy" document that states "We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal...? It doesn't say "except for Mexicans" or "except for Iraqui's" or "except for Irish." It say ALL men. A true patriot honors the words of that document. Its a bit like the so-called Christian who indulges in shady business deals and cheats on his wife, but goes to Church every Sunday. How much respect does such an individual deserve? Very little in my book. Yelof took the words out of my mouth - "find another planet"!

oh-waaah. Do you seriously think that people outside of US borders hating us is something new? Americans have been extremely foolish to believe that an eagerness to accept our money and welcome our offshored jobs equates to people liking us.

Thanks for the lecture on "all men being created equal." I don't remember EVER saying they weren't. All I have said is that we have to place our priorities. I believe that the safety and security and yes - the comfort of Americans and those who stand with us should be OUR government's primary concern. The purpose of a government is to protect their own. All nations will act in what is to them a rational manner (from the leader's perspective) An action or policy that (from the leader's perspective) is necessary for one country may be counter to another nation's interest. welcome to international conflict. It doesn't mean that one group of people is superior to the other, it merely means that the two nations' interest do not coincide. national conflict and war is inevitable. My comments about what a believe to be a touchy feely globalist view I stand by. I wish we could all just get along - but we can't. It is not human nature. This isn't Star Trek, we don't have a Federation looking out for the best interests of all people. In any organization the leadership can and will be corrupted, I refuse to support giving any amount of control over our nation to an organization such as the UN. The UN is a tool, not a governing body. If we cede our power to another governing body we no longer have the right to step back and pursue what may be in the interests of the nation. That, although too short to be clearly spelled out properly, is why I don't much care for external control over our nation's actions. Might does not make right, but it does decide the outcome when two nations have oposing interests.

And for those who are ashamed to have someone who thinks like me in your country or even on your planet??? Sorry, the thought police haven't caught up to me yet. So if it makes you uncomfortable, you can leave MY planet. But for the record, I am willing to share my planet with people who I strongly disagree with.

It is not a clever remark. It is what George Jr said to his staff right after he became governor of TX. We know George Jr has problems with facts. Do you also?

Which is exactly the same reasoning used to promote the criminal actions of Richard Nixon. After all, we were at war even with Cambodia and Laos. Therefore we had to kill students at Kent State who were so unpatriotic as to even be in the vicinity of a demonstration.

Patriotism is about advancement of the nation and its people. Not about following that mental midget president into mindless lies, unsubstanicated war, violations of the Geneva Convention, massive debts, a stagnant economy, perversion of science, promotion of religion by the government, and - this is the damning part - not even going after the real enemy of America (bin Laden if you have not yet forgotten who the terrorist is). The mental midget president could not even be bothered to attack, neutralize, or capture the enemy who attacked America. The war on terrorism is in Afghanistan (or maybe inside Pakistan). So what are we doing in Iraq? That is not a war. That is an occupation - or the liberation of people who did not want to be liberated. Anyone who confuses the unjustified Iraq invasion with a war on terrorism clearly uses about the same amount of intellect as the mental midget president - or loves to agree with outright lies.

This mental midget president has so mismanaged even the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq. Billy Kristol (editor of the Weekly Standard and a principle of the Project for a New American Century) who had originally promoted the Iraq invasion even says this administration has screwed up the occupation of Iraq. Lets not forget the war we forgot to win - the one that every nation in the world said was a justified invasion. George Jr still has no plans to win the real war on terrorism - Afghanistan. Maybe god only talks to governors; not presidents?

I really dont care if tw repeats the phrase . At least he talks sense

:beer: Hear! Hear!

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, unfortunately your view represents that of the ruling class in the US and we react against your opinion as we react against them and their blocking of such things as Kyoto, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Charter of the UN article 1 and the Geneva Convention etc etc...

As the lone superpower America must show restraint or be blamed for all the worlds ills, Clinton understood that and he had the respect of the world.

Those who share your opinions on matters have no place at the table of nations, you however are welcome to your opinion, but please understand that many who do not hold with your ideas outside the US act not with a desire to hate the US, but a desire to build a better world community.

Patriotism will never win the war on terrorism, as it is really a cultural war, do not subdue the world by force of arms but inspire by force of example!

The world respected Clinton? Not even the military who HAD to show respect for the office held any real respect for him.

And I assume you are familiar with Carter's lead by example strategy? Nations will not follow your lead if it is not consistant with their goals.

And tw - I did not mean that to be an attack on you - you actually present ideas in which you believe and support what you say. I was seriously just saying I am going to barf if I see that phrase one more time.

It rings as hollow and superficial to me as hearing Hannity hiccup every time he refers to T Kennedy.

depmats this may suprise you but..

the world (a place beyond the US military and fox news) greatly respected Clinton and Carter is viewed as the best ex-President the US has ever had.

these are the facts, sorry

As for chimpboy, the thief in chief, he must rate about a 1% world approval rating.

cool - it looks like someone threw a frog in a blender in here today. lots of people out making friends - i can really feel the love.

A lot of people in the Uk respected Clinton. I dont mean we didnt see his flaws , but we respected him. I really cant think of anybody who respects Bush here.
If theres a Brit/European/African/Australian/Arabic or Asian in the cellar who does I'd be intrigued to hear about it.

WTF??? Who views Carter as the best ex-President? I mean besides you?
And you mistake my refusal to be a candy-ass globalist as the same as being a Bush fanatic. Wrong!

But just a question - is a president that the world outside our borders loves the best one to have in office? I'm not so sure about that.

I don't think Clinton was the worst president ever. I do believe he has been overrated to a large degree. He treated the US military like dogshit. The economic boom of the late '90's was not due to his masterful leadership, although he was smart enough to just stand the hell out of the way.
I am the first to stand up and say that Clinton is/was extremely intelligent and extremely gifted at political maneuvering. But I don't necessarily think that makes him a good leader.

The best ex-President. Not the best President. :) After leaving office, he has done the most good.
No, the president in office is most certainly not loved outside our borders. I'm pretty sure of it.

The military only thought Clinton treated them poorly because they hadn't met Bush yet.

Birds come home to roost, pal. The US economy is dependent on a vital product that largely comes from an area of the world that hates us. We are out-sourcing EVERYTHING, including our intellectual capacities, as in our programming work going to India and other foreign countries. "If you don't use it, you'll loose it" is a saying that applies to nations as much as it does individuals. We are putting ourselves in a position where very soon the global wolf will be howling at our door, and that wolf will be one that hates us. Good luck next generation.

As a trained biologist, I have no problem with frog guts. Very enlightening, actually.;)

When engaged in a cultural war for the hearts and minds of one fifth of the world (the Muslim world), it would help to have a leader that respected the rest of the world so it could return the favour.

Sorry if I insinuated you were a Bush supporter when you say you are not, that would be an insult too far.

Carter..he did win a Noble prize, those damn commie Swedes!

Carter was a good leader hampered by circumstance and more

Carter is a good man - but not a national leader. Big difference. There are many great people who are just not cut out for leadership.

Damn those Swedes with their leftwing tendencies and their affordable stylish furniture

and meatballs - don't forget the meatballs. oh and that cool chef guy from the MUPPET SHOW.

*nods emphatically*
and gravalax

A lot of people feel Carter has been the best X-president.

http://cellar.org/2004/Xpres1.jpg

And let's not forget all that Swedish free love/porno. Hmmm... are we devolving back to the "yum vs. ah" thread?:p

Every piece of furniture I have in my house is swedish....the porn's all Dutch :P

Swedish free love

Anyone ever see the Swedish film Together it is cool, and a friend of mine's cousin stars in it.

Under Clinton, the military loved what they got. Give Clinton a problem, provide him with the reasons, then he would ask probing and incite questions, and (most important) make a decision. Those in the military who got caught without a well thought out proposal did get their ass handed to him.

As a result, under Clinton, the B-1 and B-2 bombers finally got fixed. Both $multi-billion warplane were useless for most of their 20 and 10 years previously. Under Clinton, the carriers finally got fixed - having demonstrated during the Kuwait war that they were not functional weapons of a coordinated military.

Under Clinton, expensive ships such as the entire Missouri class were decommissioned to be replaced by just as functional destroyers and cruisers. Entire Army functions were integrated with Air Force units to make a truly mobile and fast reaction force. Unfortunately, even under Clinton, the Republicans got a classic piece of useless pork - ie the C130J instead of more desperately needed C-17s.

Given a need to coordinate the Hati invasion, under Clinton, something new happened. Army was delivered to the battle on the USS JFK. Previously not even possible. The Navy's crown jewel was instead used to deliver soldiers and helicopters. Such cooperation just was not possible in days before Clinton.

Overall, the military loved Clinton because a smart military man could make his case and Clinton actually understood those facts. Compare this to a boondoogle that even top experts say does not work - George Jr's Star Wars system being built in Alaska. God knows bin Laden will some day launch a nuclear missile at us. Its good to know we have this defense. Yes, good military men needed more armoured HumVees and armour plated body armour. However they got a real expensive Star Wars system instead. You can imagine how well this goes down with smart military men.

To find reasons for a military dislike of Clinton, one must spend too much time listening the Rush Limbaugh propaganda. However listen to the retired Generals. They don't like George Jr and don't like the micromanager Rumsfeld.

*sticks hand in air* I vaguely remember something like that... once... :)

[quote]Originally posted by tw
[b]Under Clinton, the military loved what they got.


How could you say that the military loved Clinton? Just as anecdotal as you pointing to R & D improvements in weapons platforms - I can point to the people on the ground, who most assuredly didn't like Clinton.

The Delta, Ranger, and USAF SpecFor guys in Somalia who were sent in without the equipment they had asked for as being necessary to do their job. They were refused based on an aversion to looking bad to the rest of the world. Even crewchiefs on USAF cargo planes that were delivering the food were shot at because they weren't given the protection required for the the situation.
Then the wounded who did survive the battle didn't even receive a visit from the president or his staff until one was requested?

How about the soldier's who were court-martialed for refusing to wear the powder-blue UN berets and helmets, and the UN patch OVER the US flag?

US troops stationed in KSA in the mid-90's being told not to wear their uniforms in town - as they didn't want to send the wrong message to the locals? (in contrast, earlier in the century US forces were required to where their uniforms off base as a banner that said "don't F with this one.")

Bombing of the Khobar towers with no response from the US?

The continual downsizing of our fighting forces throughout the 90's?

The Marine honor guard forced to put on smocks and hand out hors d'eaurves (sp?) at White House events?

I am not saying that the military was burning Clinton in effigy - but to say that they loved him is absolutely rediculous.

Bush is not faultless but his screw-ups generally have not been seen as a slap in the face to the guys on the ground.

Who dragged the U.S. into Somalia again? Oh yeah, it was the first Bush. With no exit strategy. Like father like son. You can't blame Clinton for that mess. He did the best he could in an unwinnable situation. He should have pulled out sooner. That was his only big mistake.

Soldiers disobeying legal orders got court martialed? Sounds fair to me.

I don't know firsthand about the local leave policy in KSA, Hell, I don't even know what KSA is, but I imagine that Bill Clinton didn't come up with it. You will need to give more information on that to convince me.

I agree, a strong response againt the Khobar bombing would have been nice. Don't see how that has anything to do with the military though.

Downsizing of the military. I always love it when you folks drag that one out and fail to mention that it was the first Bush and then Sec. Defence Cheney who initailly downsized the military when they were in office before Clinton. The vast majority of the downsizing was done by Bush & Co., not Clinton.

Marine honor guard putting on smocks?! Where do you get this stuff?

I think serving in an unwinnable war, without the support you need from your leaders, while having your return date constantly pushed back, when you only signed up for two weekends a month, is much, much, much worse than anything Clinton ever did to the military.

I agree with you that the military didn't love Clinton. But that doesn't mean they like Bush II. They loathe Bush II. You have retired generals coming out against Bush. You never had that under Clinton. And don't get me started on all the scapegoats they are trying to prosecute in the prison scandal so the leadership doesn't have to take the blame. The prison policy came from the White House.

-Edited a couple of the really bad spelling mistakes.

I can't remember who posted this, but it was a bad joke right?

Clinton was the most embarassing thing to happen to our nation in decades.

I think the Abu Grhaib photos will cost many WESTERN lives for decades.

But the Clinton embarrasment has already demeaned the US, and will for awhile.....slick willy made it aceptable to be a scumbag, escpecially to the younger generation who were already forcefed by television and the press that anything goes, just don't hurt anybodies feelings.

Sorry for the spelling & grammar & such, I'm pissed and my keyboard sucks...espeially the "" key.

"the world", not "the puritans".

Something wrong with having some morals?

When you force them upon others, absolutely.

You've got to put the quote in context, Clinton tried to work with the world, when he spoke to other nations you could tell he understood what he was saying and could really talk with the principle players. You might not agree what he was doing but you could understand the process.

Nobody outside America gave much of a shit about the Monica thing, if there was embarrassment to be had there it should be had by those who insisted on putting their nation through a pointless witch hunt.

Clinton was capable, intelligent and made some attempt of at least going through the process of being fair.

You might return that you couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks, I would think such a view shortsighted and would end with a US isolated from a world she depends upon as much as it depends on her

Splendid Isolation loses it's sheen after a while. It's also interesting to see a Body politic so completely unhook itself from the moral/ethical counterbalances which other nation states can provide. With the couplings fully loosed this is a State which is free to drift into a moral hinterland without ever having to feel itself to be anywhere but the moral highground.

Very poetic. I concur.:beer:

A small historical note: Actually, I think Richard Milhaus Nixon takes the honor of being the first scumbag president, and the older generation got to watch a lot of TV, as well. I (and many others) were not impressed, nor were we left with the thought that anything goes.

Y'know.....I never really did understand just what all that fuss was about over the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. There are worse things a President can do in office than a tumble with an intern.....If Hilary could forgive him maybe the rest of th world could just butt out.

I would have understood it more if he'd built his political footing on the base of conservative moral family values. That would then point to hypocricy in his dealings with the electorate. What his dealings are with his nearest and dearest is his own business.

Really if thats the very best sex scandal you guys can come up with.....then frankly ya just aint tryin

The Sad Fate of Stephen Milligan Conservative MP for Eastleigh 1994

This guy was part of a government which had built it's powerbase on a "Back to Basic, Common Sense Conservative Family Values" campaign .....