American creditablity?

[JoS]

In light of all the develops over the past few years int he American political landscape, and even over the past decade or so, doe sthe US have any creditablity to its name?

I'm not just talking about Iraq, I am not just talking about the leaking of a CIA name by top White Hosue officials and staff. Add in things like Tom Delays problems, the senate majority leader wrapped up in corruption scandals. Things like the trend of blatant ignorance for international law over the past 10 years (internationall criminal court, Kyoto, softwood rulings, Geneva Convention, the UN etc). Im sure you can think of other things that have tarnished the credibility and reputation of the US.

Recently in a trip to Canada the Secretary of State Dr Rice said the United States' word is "as good as gold".
The response given to her statement later on in the House of Commons (our version of Congress) by our forgiena ffairs minister "We've been off the gold standard for an awfully long time in this country".

So the question I pose, is Americans word still as good as gold, or is it worth less than the paper its printed on?

[Dilapsor]

The gold standard response was fucking brilliant.

[DMXRoid]

In light of all the develops over the past few years int he American political landscape, and even over the past decade or so, doe sthe US have any creditablity to its name?

Yes, of course it does. The dollar gives us credibility, and as long as we're the movers and shakers of the world economy, we're going to continue to have that credibility. What's France going to do, stop buying our products?

I'm not just talking about Iraq, I am not just talking about the leaking of a CIA name by top White Hosue officials and staff.

You mean the leak that wasn't a leak because it was common knowledge that she worked for the CIA, that she hadn't been a covert operative in years, if ever (much longer than the 5 years that the statue covers), and that White House officials didn't LEAK her name at all?

:Add in things like Tom Delays problems,

You mean having a politically motivated prosecutor go after him for something that wasn't a crime when the action was taken, a prosecutor who tried to cover up the fact that he couldn't get a grand jury indictment? A prosecutor who considers himself a crusader for campaign finance while extorting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars from companies he doesn't like?

:the senate majority leader wrapped up in corruption scandals.

DeLay is the House Majority Leader. Bill Frist hasn't had any problems. There were some questions about his stock sales, but that turned out to be on the up and up.

:Things like the trend of blatant ignorance for international law over the past 10 years (internationall criminal court,

Yes, because what we want is to put Americans up for trial by... Iranians? Yeah, that's smart. Look at the show trials that convict Isrealis of war crimes in Europe on a regular basis, and tell me that any system of international justice will be fair.

:Kyoto,

An environmental treaty that punishes the United States for being developed while giving a free ride to developing nations that produce nothing of value, and have no economies to support anyway? Yeah, no thanks.

:Geneva Convention,

If you have any evidence that the United States military violated the Geneva convention, please, show me. Terrorists aren't afforded Geneva protections, Article IV, the section referring to the treatment of POW's, says explicitly that you have to be associated with a nation, and obey the rules yourself to get those protections. We're under no obligations to treat vicious savages who cut off the heads of their prisoners like British gentlemen in a trade war.

:the UN

Because nothing makes more sense than paying attention to the words of an organization that is itself embroiled in a scandal that makes it complicit with the behavior of one of the worst dictators of the century, right? I mean, if you're morally superior, you're totally going to pocket billions in graft from a man who attempts genocide against hte Kurds, and lets children in his country starve while he builds his military, correct?

Recently in a trip to Canada the Secretary of State Dr Rice said the United States' word is "as good as gold".
The response given to her statement later on in the House of Commons (our version of Congress) by our forgiena ffairs minister "We've been off the gold standard for an awfully long time in this country".

Yes, well, the Canadian dollar is worth 60 cents, so, there ya have it.

So the question I pose, is Americans word still as good as gold, or is it worth less than the paper its printed on?

I don't think it matters whether or not we're credible. Nations that would do what we wanted do so anyway, nations that don't, don't. Russia and France were never going to be our steadfast allies anyway, so let them be pissed. They're still impotent.

[Demosthenez]

At 10/27/05 01:30 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: So the question I pose, is Americans word still as good as gold, or is it worth less than the paper its printed on?

Seems you already have your opinoin so why the hell do you care what anyone else thinks?

[JoS]

At 10/27/05 01:43 AM, DMXRoid wrote: You mean the leak that wasn't a leak because it was common knowledge that she worked for the CIA, that she hadn't been a covert operative in years, if ever (much longer than the 5 years that the statue covers), and that White House officials didn't LEAK her name at all?

It wasn't common knowledge that she was, it was classified. Besides that you also now have the issue of some of the senior memebers of the government possibly up for indictments on perjury charges (which was included in the investigators mandate from the attorney generals office) for the cover up.

You mean having a politically motivated prosecutor go after him for something that wasn't a crime when the action was taken,..............

If they are so baseless and politically motivated, why did he step down? Besides, to tarnish ones credibility allegations do not have to be proven.

DeLay is the House Majority Leader.

My bad. I ment House.

Yes, because what we want is to put Americans up for trial by... Iranians? Yeah, that's smart. Look at the show trials that convict Isrealis of war crimes in Europe on a regular basis, and tell me that any system of international justice will be fair.

Are you telling me that there are no people in the world who can provide fair and impartial judgement on international criminal cases? Is it fair that the US prosecuted Manual Noriega for drugs charges after they kidnapped him from the country he ran? And who said it would be the Iranians that would try Americans. There are over 150 different countries. Why didnt you say Americans up for trial by... Isrelaies, or by the British? Oh thats right, because it wouldnt help your case.

Kyoto,

An environmental treaty that punishes the United States for being developed while giving a free ride to developing nations that produce nothing of value,.....

No they dont get a free ride, they too have to follow environmental controls. Besides you have the ability to cut down your emissions (Arent you the worlds leading polluter?), but you choose not to because it effects your bottom line.

Geneva Convention,

If you have any evidence that the United States military violated the Geneva convention, please, show me. .........

Does the name Abu Ghraib mean anything to you? Or how about the fact that it bans torture? This is from www.genevaconventions.org

Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).

Notice it says civilians in occupied territories and wounded combatants as well as civilians in intenral or international conflicts. So what are the insurgents classfied as? Are they civilians or combatants. Doesn't matter, torture is still illegal.

the UN

Because nothing makes more sense than paying attention to the words of an organization that is itself embroiled in a scandal that makes it complicit with the behavior of one of the worst dictators of the century, right?.............

Well to be fair for one this century has only been going on for about 5 years, only 3 of which Sadam was in power for. And if I rememebr correctly, this dictatro recieved substantial military assitance from the US at one point. So dont go trying to take the moral highground against the UN for the dealings of a few of its members in a scandal when your countries policy at one point was to give him guns.

Yes, well, the Canadian dollar is worth 60 cents, so, there ya have it.

Actually it is currently 85 cents.

I don't think it matters whether or not we're credible. Nations that would do what we wanted do so anyway, nations that don't, don't. Russia and France were never going to be our steadfast allies anyway, so let them be pissed. They're still impotent.

Ok, but you are still dodging the question slightly, should the world believe what the US says, take their word on matters, and does the US have any credibility. I am not asking if countries will do what you want them to do, Im asking shoudl the world believe you anymore?

[JoS]

At 10/27/05 01:53 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 10/27/05 01:30 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: So the question I pose, is Americans word still as good as gold, or is it worth less than the paper its printed on?

Seems you already have your opinoin so why the hell do you care what anyone else thinks?

Because I actually want to hear what others think. Its stupid to not want to hear others arguemnts and what others think. Its the basic princple of the sysnthesis model, you need a thesis (for example my view) and an antithesis (an opposing view) to form a synthesis (a combination of the two and generally is a better fit than the two individually).

Why else would I fucking read Anne Coulter?

[BrooklynBrett]

We don't have "creditability", huh?

Maybe before you continue the Canadian tradition of looking down your nose at others, learn to spell the key word of your topic.

[JoS]

At 10/27/05 02:11 AM, Thorfalcon wrote: We don't have "creditability", huh?

Maybe before you continue the Canadian tradition of looking down your nose at others, learn to spell the key word of your topic.

Aww how cute, he cant think of a reply so instead of attacking my arguement he attacks my spelling.

[Redbob86]

What I want to know is what Canada has done that has given it any credibility. No disrespect, but you guys just seem to neutral to be taken seriously.

[Demosthenez]

At 10/27/05 02:10 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Because I actually want to hear what others think. Its stupid to not want to hear others arguemnts and what others think. Its the basic princple of the sysnthesis model, you need a thesis (for example my view) and an antithesis (an opposing view) to form a synthesis (a combination of the two and generally is a better fit than the two individually).

If you actually want a decent discussion and not some giant flame fest, you did a horrible job of setting the premise.

You dont have a moderator saying babies arent babies until the whatever trimester and then asking if anyone thinks aborting non humans is bad. Or a moderator saying evolution is completly false and then asking how people feel about teaching such a false premise.

How about try setting the premise so as not to just say your idea and then set the topic up for a flame war, eh?

[BrooklynBrett]

Aww how cute, he cant think of a reply so instead of attacking my arguement he attacks my spelling.

Here's my reply, complete with spelling and logic to top yours any day.

We don't NEED credibility. We've been #1 in the world for years and years and years, and the rest of the world is either jealous, or in pursuit. We topple murderous regimes while the rest of the world cowers in hand-wringing, self-loathing soliloquies. We don't need the world's "street cred". We're richer, more prosperous, harder working, and defensive of the rights of others. I don't give a flying fuck what the rest of the world thinks of our "creditability", and neither do most Americans.

You can just continue the Canadian pastime of sneering at America, while we work, defend, and enjoy our prosperity.

[gussiejives]

Given that America owes Canada $5 Billion in softwood lumber and they're not honouring their own treaties, I don't think we can trust America at its word anymore.

[gussiejives]

At 10/27/05 02:36 AM, Thorfalcon wrote: We don't NEED credibility. We've been #1 in the world for years and years and years, and the rest of the world is either jealous, or in pursuit. We topple murderous regimes while the rest of the world cowers in hand-wringing, self-loathing soliloquies. We don't need the world's "street cred". We're richer, more prosperous, harder working, and defensive of the rights of others. I don't give a flying fuck what the rest of the world thinks of our "creditability", and neither do most Americans.

You can just continue the Canadian pastime of sneering at America, while we work, defend, and enjoy our prosperity.

You may not need credibility, but you definitely need Canada to remain a superpower. Where do you think your power comes from? That's right, your nuclear weapons are fuelled by Uranium from Saskatchewan, so don't think for a second that America is the superpower it is without help from other nations.

[DMXRoid]

It wasn't common knowledge that she was, it was classified. Besides that you also now have the issue of some of the senior memebers of the government possibly up for indictments on perjury charges (which was included in the investigators mandate from the attorney generals office) for the cover up.

No, it wasn't classified. WHat's the point of classifying the fact that someone is a CIA paper pusher?

If they are so baseless and politically motivated, why did he step down? Besides, to tarnish ones credibility allegations do not have to be proven.

Because House Republican rules say that he has to step aside as majority leader if indicted. This thing called ethics.

Are you telling me that there are no people in the world who can provide fair and impartial judgement on international criminal cases?

Yes. There are no nations whose love for justice would overwhelm their own national interest.

No they dont get a free ride, they too have to follow environmental controls. Besides you have the ability to cut down your emissions (Arent you the worlds leading polluter?), but you choose not to because it effects your bottom line.

Yes, exactly. We won't fuck our economy for the beneift of some tree hugging hippies.

Does the name Abu Ghraib mean anything to you? Or how about the fact that it bans torture? This is from www.genevaconventions.org

Abu Ghirab wasn't a violation of the Geneva Convention, because it didn't deal with Iraqi regular troops, but terrorists, who don't recieve Geneva protection.

Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).

Yes, as long as those civilians don't pick up guns and hide among other civilians waiting to kill you. If you want Geneva protections, you have to play by Geneva rules. There are no obligations to give those protections to those who don't.

Notice it says civilians in occupied territories and wounded combatants as well as civilians in intenral or international conflicts. So what are the insurgents classfied as? Are they civilians or combatants. Doesn't matter, torture is still illegal.

Neither. They aren't civilians because they're attacking, and they aren't combatants because they don't have the normal combatant infrastructure behind them, incuding an accountable commander, something to differentiate them from the other civilians, and a declared army.

Look, you're just wrong here. Actually read the Geneva COnvention's definition of who the torture regulations apply to, and then come back and talk to me.

Well to be fair for one this century has only been going on for about 5 years, only 3 of which Sadam was in power for.

Past 100 years.

:And if I rememebr correctly, this dictatro recieved substantial military assitance from the US at one point.

Yes, because at the time, it made sense. He was fighting Iranians. As soon as he became a dick, we turned on him.

:So dont go trying to take the moral highground against the UN for the dealings of a few of its members in a scandal when your countries policy at one point was to give him guns.

A few members? Like the Secretary General??

Actually it is currently 85 cents.

Yeay Canada! 85% as cool as the US!

Ok, but you are still dodging the question slightly, should the world believe what the US says, take their word on matters, and does the US have any credibility. I am not asking if countries will do what you want them to do, Im asking shoudl the world believe you anymore?

Yes, because if they don't, we'll kill them.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/27/05 09:14 AM, DMXRoid wrote: Yes, because if they don't, we'll kill them.

You're really pathetic.

[LazyDrunk]

At 10/27/05 09:37 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 10/27/05 09:14 AM, DMXRoid wrote: Yes, because if they don't, we'll kill them.

You're really pathetic.

Your one-line posts suck cock.

[PhysicsMafia]

Yes, because if they don't, we'll kill them.

The simple logic is incredible..."simple" being the operative word

[DMXRoid]

At 10/27/05 09:37 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 10/27/05 09:14 AM, DMXRoid wrote: Yes, because if they don't, we'll kill them.

You're really pathetic.

Why?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/27/05 01:30 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: In light of all the develops over the past few years int he American political landscape, and even over the past decade or so, doe sthe US have any creditablity to its name?

Sure. The US has always paid back its national debt on time, right? That's why other countries lend us money, because we're a safe investment (hard to believe I know).

I'm not just talking about Iraq, I am not just talking about the leaking of a CIA name by top White Hosue officials and staff. Add in things like Tom Delays problems, the senate majority leader wrapped up in corruption scandals. Things like the trend of blatant ignorance for international law over the past 10 years (internationall criminal court, Kyoto, softwood rulings, Geneva Convention, the UN etc). Im sure you can think of other things that have tarnished the credibility and reputation of the US.

Leaking of a CIA name...who wasn't undercover or covert. There's no crime there. Tom Delay is innocent, indicted by a phony jury and a phony prosecutor, and Bill Frist hasn't even been indicted yet. And even if they were guilty, these are just the actions of some men, not the US as a whole. It's just D.C. politics.

As for the other things you mention, I don't see how our country's unwillingness to join any of those institutions make us lose credibility. In my eyes, we gain credibility since we're not dumb enough to join or participate in them. I could go through each of them on an individual basis, and I suppose I will later, but I have class soon.

Recently in a trip to Canada the Secretary of State Dr Rice said the United States' word is "as good as gold".
The response given to her statement later on in the House of Commons (our version of Congress) by our forgiena ffairs minister "We've been off the gold standard for an awfully long time in this country".

Yeah, cry about it, your country would suck without free trade from America.

So the question I pose, is Americans word still as good as gold, or is it worth less than the paper its printed on?

What are you referring to anyway? You can always trust America to be the world's strongest superpower and to retaliate 200% whenever it's directly attacked.

[bcdemon]

I would say no. (like that was a surprise right)

They are a snake in the grass, waiting to strike the second you turn your back.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 10/27/05 01:30 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: In light of all the develops over the past few years int he American political landscape, and even over the past decade or so, doe sthe US have any creditablity to its name?

I would believe so. Nations aren't exactly flocking to Canada for help with defense, aid, etc.

I'm not just talking about Iraq, I am not just talking about the leaking of a CIA name by top White Hosue officials and staff. Add in things like Tom Delays problems, the senate majority leader wrapped up in corruption scandals.

I'm sure there's no corruption anywhere else.

http://www.einnews.c..eed-CanadaCorruption

Recently in a trip to Canada the Secretary of State Dr Rice said the United States' word is "as good as gold".
The response given to her statement later on in the House of Commons (our version of Congress) by our forgiena ffairs minister "We've been off the gold standard for an awfully long time in this country".
So the question I pose, is Americans word still as good as gold, or is it worth less than the paper its printed on?

No, it's word isn't as good as gold, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, nor will the word of any other good nation.

The U.S.'s first job is to benefit it's citizenry. So is any other nation. If it's necessary to change our course of action should a plan suddenly be a liability for us, we should do it.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/27/05 09:41 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

At 10/27/05 09:37 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 10/27/05 09:14 AM, DMXRoid wrote: Yes, because if they don't, we'll kill them.

You're really pathetic.

Your one-line posts suck cock.

Does that mean you're not going to ask me to the prom???

[JoS]

I am aware of the fact there is corruption everywhere. Canada is currently goign through an investigation of kickbacks to the federal government from awarding ad campaigns to liberal supporters.

The reason the US refuses to sign on is the fear of Americans being indicted for war crimes. And if the US has such respect for the alw, why not hand over the three soliders who have warrants out for their arrest in Spain? Surely Spain is a country we can expect a decent trial from, not just a show trial. They may be mad at America, but Im sure theya rent gonan just do a show trial.

Definition of a civilian
A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

There is some structure to the resistance movement so they dont qualify as civilians, or perhaps they fall under volunter corps or militias. I mean its run more or less by the former special forces of Iraq, loyal to Sadam. So I gues sthey arent civilians.

Here is combatant.

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy’s own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

Hey wait doesnt that say then that civilians who commit acts of violence are not considered combatants. So if you claim they have no military structure then they are civilians, if they do have a command structre then they qualify as combatants. And IF you read it says in there if they commit acts of war and violate the Geneva convention they still do not loose status as a combatant or its protections. And if they have no military command structure as you claim then they are civilians who must be tried ina ccordance with local law, not taken back to another country and tried under the other countries law.

And to be a mercanary they must be paid, and paid more of the equvialant in the national army, which means insurgents do not qualify as they are volunteers.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/27/05 01:30 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: (internationall criminal court, Kyoto, softwood rulings, Geneva Convention, the UN etc). Im sure you can think of other things that have tarnished the credibility and reputation of the US.

ICC: No good reason for it: the US would most likely be penalized. The criticism the US receives is often selective: for example, when a terrorist beheads a POW, the international community doesn't pursue litigation because they are unaccountable. If a drop of pee pee falls on a Qur'an by accident, the ICC would be all over that as mental torture or whatever.

Finally, the ICC is another step closer to international/world rule, which is anti-democratic in it's nature. We have enough trouble with our own Supreme Court as is.

Kyoto: First of all, Global warming is not a proven theory. Second of all, it penalizes the United States more than any other nation. Third of all, Kyoto would not even solve the alleged problem of global warming. I've heard figures that say it would reduce global warming by less than 1 percent over 100 years. What sane nation would enter that agreement?

Geneva Convention: I believe that there has not been a conflict since the Geneva Convention were established where the Geneva Conventions have been followed completely by any side. There is always a case of abuse: such is war. War always includes atrocities, as well as cases of heroism. I have no problem with the Geneva Convention as long as the state we are fighting is a legitimate state and we are both under the regulations it provides. Since we aren't fighting combatants from any legitimate state, and they don't follow them, there is no reason to be penalized for not following them.

The UN: Let's not beat around the bush. The UN abuses its power, has aspirations for one-world rule, has misguided values, and will allow any state to join, and will honestly view any state as legitimate. You cannot be a true liberal if you look at the UN and don't see some serious problems and a great need for reform. I think the UN is 100% less credible than the US. The UN has to do these things to be effective: 1) cut down in size 2) exclude members of illegitimate states 3) define the legitimate state as one with a social Contrct or Constitution that respects and protects private property and CLASSICAL human rights 4) kick out thugs and dictators from the Human Rights Commission 5) Get rid of its aspirations for one-world rule and fulfill a role that actually promotes democracy throughout the world. Among other things.

See that list? There's a lot of things that need to reform. I think it would be easier to start from scratch. Take all the money away from the UN, have the US and Democratic Allies on this continent and Western Europe to pressure nations to democratize in various ways. The UN would probably die without the US's support, and as nations democratize they could join the new group. We could call it The Democratic Alliance of Nations.

[DMXRoid]

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See, right there, you prove my poiint for me. "A well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war."

Terrorists don't fall into that category, and therefore are not accorded the protections of hte GC.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/27/05 01:54 PM, DMXRoid wrote: Terrorists don't fall into that category, and therefore are not accorded the protections of hte GC.

That doesn't mean that the US can forgo all international law.

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Article five, Convention on POWs. There are two basic groups defined in the Geneva Conventions. Citizens, and enemy combatants. If there is doubt as to which camp a person falls under, they are to be accorded the rights of a POW until a competent tribunal is formed.

[DMXRoid]

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Yeah, there isn't a doubt. They don't belong to any of those categories, there's no question about it.

Article five, Convention on POWs. There are two basic groups defined in the Geneva Conventions. Citizens, and enemy combatants. If there is doubt as to which camp a person falls under, they are to be accorded the rights of a POW until a competent tribunal is formed.

Once again, there's no doubt. They've proven that they're unwilling to follow the rules of war, engage in Geneva protections themselves, or make their forces distinct from the civilian population.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/27/05 02:05 PM, DMXRoid wrote: Once again, there's no doubt. They've proven that they're unwilling to follow the rules of war, engage in Geneva protections themselves, or make their forces distinct from the civilian population.

Actually, the majority of people that we're holding in Abu Ghraib and other prisons which we co-opted are usually released because we have no proof of any wrongdoing. But that is beside the fact. You didn't respond to my post. You simply reiterated your position. Which does not address the central fact that if we don't know whether a person is a citizen or an enemy combatant, then they are to given the basic rights of a POW until a competent tribunal can be held.

[Der-Ubermensch]

The American Government follows international law only when it is convenient, or simply to save face. There is no true will granted on its part to concede any sort of power or leverage for any good other than its own.

America's legacy will be nothing more than economical/political exploitation, violence and a total disrespect of the world in general. In short, the power that will have consumed the most, and given back the least, both in terms of culture and the betterment of mankind.

[DMXRoid]

Actually, the majority of people that we're holding in Abu Ghraib and other prisons which we co-opted are usually released because we have no proof of any wrongdoing. But that is beside the fact. You didn't respond to my post. You simply reiterated your position. Which does not address the central fact that if we don't know whether a person is a citizen or an enemy combatant, then they are to given the basic rights of a POW until a competent tribunal can be held.

And you didn't respond to my statement that there's no question, they're neither combatants or civilians.