Neoprog Posner sucks up to Chicoms

[Hermit]

leftist/anarchist cunts like Churchill

Is that a Churchill I have never been made aware of?

[Toontown]

leftist/anarchist cunts like Churchill

Is that a Churchill I have never been made aware of?

That would be Ward Churchill of "little Eichmanns" infamy.

[Toontown]

In fact, the US is a signatory to the convention: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?Rea ... d=375&ps=P as is easily verified. Obviously, in signing up to the convention, they assessed that its terms are both reasonable and practical. A casual review of the articles of the convention which relate to the treatment of PoWs and civillians under occupation makes it easy to see why.

Yes, the U.S. is a signatory, and has done an order-of-magnitude better job of observing the convention than any of it's enemies, and most of it's allies. Your fixation on the U.S. is nothing but fucked-up propagandistic crap.

Feel free to name an enemy of the U.S. which has, in the past century, observed as much as one jot of the convention. Then you can begin to explain how the convention helps Americans. Also, you might want to consider learning to read (only) what is actually written instead of fixating on reading red herrings and strawmen into what is written, solely for your own pitifully pointless propagandistic purposes.

Bearing in mind that I did not say the U.S. should ignore the convention. I simply pointed out the obvious fact that the convention does Americans absolutely no good whatsoever, given the demonstrated nature of our enemies. For the very simple reason that our enemies simply do not observe the convention.

Furthermore, you persist in trying to implant the false premise that terrorists have the rights of PoW's. That dishonest crap has been debunked repeatedly, only hours ago, in this forum. So now you want me to debunk it again?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005144

Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, states that if a civilian "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."

And as to coercive interrogation:

Article 5 makes clear that if an Iraqi civilian who is not a member of the armed forces, has engaged in attacks on Coalition forces, the Geneva Convention permits the use of more coercive interrogation approaches to prevent future attacks.

This kind of mule-headed, persistent repetition of the same old repeatedly debunked crap is typical of people of your ideological ilk, and is exactly why I despise their stubborn, pointless, badgering "debating" tactics.

[Trolldor]

FOR AMERICA! YEAH!

[Feck]

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

[Trolldor]

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

I refute your claims, because AMERICA!

[Feck]

Article 5 makes clear that if an Iraqi civilian who is not a member of the armed forces, has engaged in attacks on Coalition forces, the Geneva Convention permits the use of more coercive interrogation approaches to prevent future attacks.



The quote is from John Woo ... it is a LIE just like his legal advice:

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed the work of principal author John Yoo, now a law professor, and signatory Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, to determine whether the advice given "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."[25] In its 261 page final report, the Office for Professional Responsibility concluded that the legal opinions that justified waterboarding and other interrogation tactics on Al Qaeda suspects in American custody amounted to professional misconduct, and that Professor Yoo in particular "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law," recommending referral to the Bar for disciplinary action.[26] However, career Justice department lawyer David Margolis[27] in a Memorandum dated January 5, 2010 countermanded the recommended referral.[28] While Margolis was careful to avoid "an endorsement of the legal work" which he said was "flawed" and "contained errors more than minor," he concluded that Yoo had merely exercised "poor judgment" which did not rise to the level of "professional misconduct" sufficient to authorize OPR to refer its findings to the state bar disciplinary authorities.[29]

[Feck]

Who lives in Monkey world ?

[FBM]

Who lives in Monkey world ?

Ani does.

[Feck]

So Fuck the Geneva conventions how about the UN convention against torture ?


Merika Signed up for that
From Wiki


Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[6] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[7] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[6] Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[6]

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.[6]

The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.[6]

[edit]Ban on refoulement
Article 3 prohibits parties from returning, extraditing or refouling any person to a state "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture".[8] The Committee against Torture has held that this danger must be assessed not just for the initial receiving state, but also to states to which the person may be subsequently expelled, returned or extradited.[9]

[Feck]

Seems Mr Woo isn't qualified to clean the shit out of the cages in monkey world !

[Feck]

As for directing it against ideas and not people, I don't really see what the difference is.

Personal insults are not needed You're not very good at them anyway

[Toontown]

So Fuck the Geneva conventions how about the UN convention against torture ?

As I laboriously and pointedly explained to whats-his-face a little while ago, I did not say the U.S. should ignore the convention. I simply pointed out the fact that the convention does Americans no good whatsoever. Because, as I laboriously explained, America's enemies have not in any case observed the convention.

Nor did I sign on to defend Abu Graib or any other wrongful act ever committed by any American in uniform. Your utterly predictable, propagandistic finger-pointing escalation attempts are identified.

[Feck]

So Fuck the Geneva conventions how about the UN convention against torture ?

As I laboriously and pointedly explained to whats-his-face a little while ago, I did not say the U.S. should ignore the convention. I simply pointed out the fact that the convention does Americans no good whatsoever. Because, as I laboriously explained, America's enemies have not in any case observed the convention.

Nor did I sign on to defend Abu Graib or any other wrongful act ever committed by any American in uniform. Your utterly predictable, propagandistic finger-pointing escalation attempts are identified.

You quoted Woo you deliberately tried to misapply Article 5 and you were needlessly aggressive and insulting to Everyone who doesn't share you opinion feel free to move the goal posts now but it's too late .

[Toontown]

Who lives in Monkey world ?

You do.

You live in a monkeyworld which has not once, in it's entire existence, ever fully observed the Geneva conventions, signatories or not.

You live in a monkeyworld in which you, specifically, for deliberate obfuscatory purposes, attempt to take propagandistic advantage of the fact that authors of the Geneva conventions did not foresee the situation in which we find ourselves, in which clandestine international terrorists who do not fight for any country, deliberately target and attack the civilian populations of countries. You know very well these creatures are not foreseen, envisioned, mentioned, or dealt with at all by the conventions.

You know very well that in this situation, the country or countries under attack have every right to properly decide for themselves the manner in which these creatures are to be held when captured. You know very well that "unlawful combatant" is a perfectly adequate description of these creatures. You know very well that granting these creatures the rights of PoW's is more than they deserve, because you know full well that the terrorists' clandestine, ununiformed, civilian-attacking method of warfare is itself a war crime.

And yet you persist in this pointless, mule-headed, pseudo-moralistic, finger-pointing, time-wasting bullshit.