View Full Version : US petition
Busyman
11-30-2005, 12:30 AM
Yeah, "pull out" of the Geneva Convention, amend anti-torture treaties which you've already signed, to allow you to do what you want.
These things can be so flippin' troublesome.
Laws change.
Is the Geneva Convention good forever or does it expire?
JPaul
11-30-2005, 01:09 AM
Yeah, "pull out" of the Geneva Convention, amend anti-torture treaties which you've already signed, to allow you to do what you want.
These things can be so flippin' troublesome.
Is the Geneva Convention good forever or does it expire?
Fair point.
Is The Constitution good forever, or does it expire.
Busyman
11-30-2005, 01:43 AM
Is the Geneva Convention good forever or does it expire?
Fair point.
Is The Constitution good forever, or does it expire.
It's good forever but is changeable.
How is a question 'a fair point'? Still unanswered, btw.
Over here we have the Patriot Act which would have to be re-upped.
JPaul
11-30-2005, 01:50 AM
Fair point.
Is The Constitution good forever, or does it expire.
It's good forever but is changeable.
How is a question 'a fair point'?
Sorry, I thought you were being rhetorical.
Does "It's good forever but is changeable." only apply to your Constitution, or can other people join in.
Busyman
11-30-2005, 01:46 PM
It's good forever but is changeable.
How is a question 'a fair point'?
Sorry, I thought you were being rhetorical.
Does "It's good forever but is changeable." only apply to your Constitution, or can other people join in.
:huh:
Rat Faced
11-30-2005, 03:52 PM
Some people cannot get it through their heads that killing terrorists creates martyrs and more terrorists... despite the Whitehouse/CIA's own figures backing up this fact both by number of terrorist attacks and estimated number of terrorists.
There will always be residual effect, but in the name of rooting out even the inclination to terrorist behavior, martyrdom might even be regarded as a positive, Rat.
I believe we will eventually get to the bottom of that particular barrel in any case, and I frankly don't care a whit how many join the "cause"; I think they should all be wiped out with the sort of prejudice the Palestinians normally reserve for the Israelis.
I hope that's clear enough for you.
Go figure...
Re: The Geneva Convention.
Your wrong j2k4..
The signatories agree to treat everyone, whether they are a signatory or not, according to the convention.
Not true, sorry.
The most notable was in WWII...
Japan was not a signatory, and did not treat their prisoners according to it.
The allies were, yet still treated Japanese POWs according to the convention.
Owing chiefly to the fact the U.S. was home to many Japanese immigrants and possibly out of a sense of decency.
In any case, they were citizens of a normally recognized nation, whose government could eventually held to account for it's behavior.
That we did not maltreat Japanese POWs during WWII cannot be construed to mean we were bound by the Geneva Convention.
Again, not true, sorry.
The USA was not the only country to fight the Japanese, yet we all treated them according to the Convention.
The Convention not applying to everyone is something that your current administration has decided, and is not recognised as the legal point of view internationally.
Rather like the US/UK independantly interpreting UN Resolutions differently to everyone else in the Security Council...even though it is written into the rules that the Security Council as a whole interprets them.
Looking at it "Democratically"... 6% of the world population thinks it can do what the hell it likes, despite the legalities of the situation.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
link is the part of the geneva convention relating to pows
Not sure on the POWs of non signatories, Article 2 seems to indicate that in wars between two signatories any 3rd parties are covered, but for other wars non-signatories aren't covered. However Iraq is a signatory so its a moot point.
Article 4 seems to indicate that the Iraqi insurgents aren't POWs.
As i read it J2 is almost right for once. :)
JPaul
11-30-2005, 08:31 PM
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
link is the part of the geneva convention relating to pows
Not sure on the POWs of non signatories, Article 2 seems to indicate that in wars between two signatories any 3rd parties are covered, but for other wars non-signatories aren't covered. However Iraq is a signatory so its a moot point.
Article 4 seems to indicate that the Iraqi insurgents aren't POWs.
As i read it J2 is almost right for once. :)
Such a shame what he said was irrelevant.:(
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
link is the part of the geneva convention relating to pows
Not sure on the POWs of non signatories, Article 2 seems to indicate that in wars between two signatories any 3rd parties are covered, but for other wars non-signatories aren't covered. However Iraq is a signatory so its a moot point.
Article 4 seems to indicate that the Iraqi insurgents aren't POWs.
As i read it J2 is almost right for once. :)
Such a shame what he said was irrelevant.:(
I believe, one way or another, that I have addressed the entirety of your concerns as they apply to my posting, JP, but as we've all witnessed, occasionally things can become somewhat confuzzled.
I think I was exercising my right to meander a bit, as we seemed to be stuck on the point of "moral" or "not moral" as regards torture.
What do you desire I speak to?
As i read it J2 is almost right for once. :)
May you survive your impending personal shitstorm, my son. :P
The USA was not the only country to fight the Japanese, yet we all treated them according to the Convention.
Hmmm.
I could have sworn it was the U.S.A. we were speaking of...
As to your last, be that as it may, "we" were not bound by the Convention to do so!
JPaul
11-30-2005, 09:39 PM
Such a shame what he said was irrelevant.:(
I believe, one way or another, that I have addressed the entirety of your concerns as they apply to my posting, JP, but as we've all witnessed, occasionally things can become somewhat confuzzled.
I think I was exercising my right to meander a bit, as we seemed to be stuck on the point of "moral" or "not moral" as regards torture.
What do you desire I speak to?
No, I think you'll find I said it was immoral. We know what immoral means, contrary to established moral principles. I think you'll find that most countries have agreed torture is wrong, ours certainly have. I think you'll find that your own Constition thinks it is wrong. Therefore, ergo, Q.E.D. torture is immoral. That's the one point we can agree on.
I believe, one way or another, that I have addressed the entirety of your concerns as they apply to my posting, JP, but as we've all witnessed, occasionally things can become somewhat confuzzled.
I think I was exercising my right to meander a bit, as we seemed to be stuck on the point of "moral" or "not moral" as regards torture.
What do you desire I speak to?
No, I think you'll find I said it was immoral. We know what immoral means, contrary to established moral principles. I think you'll find that most countries have agreed torture is wrong, ours certainly have. I think you'll find that your own Constition thinks it is wrong. Therefore, ergo, Q.E.D. torture is immoral. That's the one point we can agree on.
Yes, on that we do agree.
The use of chemical methodologies lies in a bit of a gray area (morally, I think, for both of us; conditioned on physical effect), and some (I believe I'm alone on this), such as sleep deprivation and other sensory methods, are of situational utility.
As an aside, I think to argue national/international "morals" loses significant weight when couched in the apparently requisite secular rhetoric.
Too bad, that.
Agrajag
12-01-2005, 01:08 AM
As an aside, I think to argue national/international "morals" loses significant weight when couched in the apparently requisite secular rhetoric.
Too bad, that.
Why, as hobbes would be quick to point out, morality can be entirely secular.
Quite right too, in my view. Why should we insist on morality being a solely religious matter.
Busyman
12-01-2005, 01:18 AM
As an aside, I think to argue national/international "morals" loses significant weight when couched in the apparently requisite secular rhetoric.
Too bad, that.
Why, as hobbes would be quick to point out, morality can be entirely secular.
Quite right too, in my view. Why should we insist on morality being a solely religious matter.
Will you quit ganging up on j2? Next thing ya know Fugs will be in here.:P
As an aside, I think to argue national/international "morals" loses significant weight when couched in the apparently requisite secular rhetoric.
Too bad, that.
Why, as hobbes would be quick to point out, morality can be entirely secular.
Quite right too, in my view. Why should we insist on morality being a solely religious matter.
So you are saying it is quite acceptable, logical and correct for morality to be secular, and precisely the opposite as to any religious aspect?
A novel view, to say the least...
JPaul
12-01-2005, 11:03 AM
Why, as hobbes would be quick to point out, morality can be entirely secular.
Quite right too, in my view. Why should we insist on morality being a solely religious matter.
So you are saying it is quite acceptable, logical and correct for morality to be secular, and precisely the opposite as to any religious aspect?
A novel view, to say the least...
I couldn't possibly comment, I have no idea what you are suggesting that I said.
What I did say was that morality did not require a religious aspect, it could be entirely secular. I did not say that morality precluded a religious aspect, merely that it did not require it.
I may have answered you, I may not, I genuinely did not understand your opening stanza.
Rat Faced
12-01-2005, 05:13 PM
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
That interpretation also says that all the Taliban prisoners and any Afgan Al Queda should have been re-patrioted as soon as hostilities ceased with Afganistan... so they're still breaking it :snooty:
BTW:
Which one of you Bar Stewards signed me up to the Rev Lou Sheldons newsletter? :angry: (Coalition for Traditional Values)
maebach
12-01-2005, 09:02 PM
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
That interpretation also says that all the Taliban prisoners and any Afgan Al Queda should have been re-patrioted as soon as hostilities ceased with Afganistan... so they're still breaking it :snooty:
BTW:
Which one of you Bar Stewards signed me up to the Rev Lou Sheldons newsletter? :angry: (Coalition for Traditional Values)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
BTW: It wasn't me
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.