Stoker Posted October 11, 2004 Report Posted October 11, 2004 Stoker; that was 2001 while they were trying to get support to invade Iraq; My report is from September 2004. Back in debt. Do you have a link? What rights has the homeland security act interfered with; privacy for one big one; they can and do follow your activiity on the internet, library, etc without ANY just cause. I, myself found that I was being followed. Break out the Tin-Foil hats Big Brother is watching you!!!! Just cause? Is not 9/11 just cause? I am sure that you are aware of this already; if you do ANY newspaper or internet reading. Just do your own search on rights violations / Homeland security act. I found 63,500 entries. You should have no problem providing a link then.........so what rights are being broken? I've heard of delays at airports and at the boarders, but is waiting in line and having your baggage checked, for your own safety, breaking your human rights? I think about three thousand people had their human rights broken on 9/11. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted October 11, 2004 Report Posted October 11, 2004 Don't be lazy Stoker. The links are EASY to find. Then you will have no claim of corrupt links. Do you not think the prisoners that the USA is holding in Quatamala without their Geneva Convention rights is bad enough. Then you have prisoners in Iraq and Quatamala being tortured. Do you not believe they have rights too??? Many people are being held in the USA without being charged. It is not just delays in luggage; lets not try to play games. Quote
Stoker Posted October 11, 2004 Report Posted October 11, 2004 Don't be lazy Stoker. The links are EASY to find. Then you will have no claim of corrupt links. Do you not think the prisoners that the USA is holding in Quatamala without their Geneva Convention rights is bad enough. Then you have prisoners in Iraq and Quatamala being tortured. Do you not believe they have rights too???Many people are being held in the USA without being charged. It is not just delays in luggage; lets not try to play games. What do the prisoners in Cuba and Iraq have to do with homeland defence? So what right(s) have been takin away from Americans? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Stoker Posted October 11, 2004 Report Posted October 11, 2004 Many people are being held in the USA without being charged. It is not just delays in luggage; lets not try to play games. What people are being held within the United States without being charged? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 This is not the latest but much more recent than your figures; Based on U.N. figures, as of 28 February 2003, the United States owed $1.327 billion in both past and current (2003) obligations to the United Nations regular budget, international tribunals, and peacekeeping. Of this amount, arrears owed prior to 1 January 2003 total $738 million. Payment of arrears owed prior to 2003 would require legislative action that either repeals or rescinds the legislation that prompted the withholding in the first place. Quote
Stoker Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 And what "prompted the withholding in the first place"? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Because they wanted to be free to torture prisoners without facing the International Tribunal. Thought they were paying too much. Excuse after excuse. They think they are special????? Quote
Stoker Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Because they wanted to be free to torture prisoners without facing the International Tribunal. Thought they were paying too much. Excuse after excuse. They think they are special????? What makes you say that? Just a hunch perhaps? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 Nope; not a hunch. If they can't be THE only voice; they don't want to play ball. America only still belongs to the UN for the extra military and financial help in its quest to rule the world. The cold war was the good old days; when everything was kept in better balance. Quote
Stoker Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Nope; not a hunch. If they can't be THE only voice; they don't want to play ball. America only still belongs to the UN for the extra military and financial help in its quest to rule the world. The cold war was the good old days; when everything was kept in better balance. Quest to rule the world? Care to shed some light on this opinion of yours? Oh, and how was the cold war the "good old days" for the United States? If, in your opinion, the States is out to "rule the world", didn't the Soviets prevent the States from this goal? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Argus Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Because they wanted to be free to torture prisoners without facing the International Tribunal. Thought they were paying too much. Excuse after excuse. They think they are special????? The Americans had issues with gross mismanagement of funds and corruption at the UN, a bloated, overpaid bureacratic talk shop infested with the appointees of dictators and tyrants. They were also unwilling to fork over the largest share of funds to support individual agencies which had become turned away from their real purpose. The UN's human rights agency, for example, now run by Libya, and determined to focus all its efforts on destroying Israel. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Many people are being held in the USA without being charged. It is not just delays in luggage; lets not try to play games. What people are being held within the United States without being charged? Mostly illegal aliens. We're holding some ourselves. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Mostly illegal aliens. We're holding some ourselves. The detentions also include the "unlawful combatants' ( a designation not recognized under international law) being held at Gitmo and other detention facilities around the world without charge or trial. Quote
Argus Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Mostly illegal aliens. We're holding some ourselves. The detentions also include the "unlawful combatants' ( a designation not recognized under international law) being held at Gitmo and other detention facilities around the world without charge or trial. International law has no actual category for these people. For example, Osama Bin Laden's organization was said to have about 10,000 non Afghani "soldiers" in their camps in Afghanistan. They are beholden to no state, but are people who journeyed long distances to join him and his terrorist group. What do you do with such people? Set them free to rejoin the "struggle"? Send them back to their home countries, where most will likely be immediately arrested and probably tortured if not killed? There's been a lot of bitching at the Americans for holding the worst of these people. No one has ever given any alternative. So go ahead, lefties. What do we do with them? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 International law has no actual category for these people. For example, Osama Bin Laden's organization was said to have about 10,000 non Afghani "soldiers" in their camps in Afghanistan. They are beholden to no state, but are people who journeyed long distances to join him and his terrorist group. Human Rights Watch says: Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state's armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not quality. Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. What do you do with such people? Set them free to rejoin the "struggle"? Send them back to their home countries, where most will likely be immediately arrested and probably tortured if not killed?There's been a lot of bitching at the Americans for holding the worst of these people. No one has ever given any alternative. So go ahead, lefties. What do we do with them? The process is the same as with any priosner: charge them or let them go. None of this indefinite detention b.s. Quote
Argus Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 What do you do with such people? Set them free to rejoin the "struggle"? Send them back to their home countries, where most will likely be immediately arrested and probably tortured if not killed?There's been a lot of bitching at the Americans for holding the worst of these people. No one has ever given any alternative. So go ahead, lefties. What do we do with them? The process is the same as with any priosner: charge them or let them go. None of this indefinite detention b.s. Thank you for affirming my belief that the lefties neither know what to do with them nor particularly care. Charge them? With what? Is there some crime in travelling a thousand miles to join a terrorist group, being trained in bomb making and murder and becoming a member of their little army? I don't think so. So you'd just release them all, right? Perhaps we could release them all in your neighbourhood? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Thank you for affirming my belief that the lefties neither know what to do with them nor particularly care. I'm sorry if my explanation was too byzantine for you, but I put it in the simplest terms possible. Charge them? With what? Is there some crime in travelling a thousand miles to join a terrorist group, being trained in bomb making and murder and becoming a member of their little army? I don't think so. And how exactly are we supossed to know if someone is a terrorist, a soldier or someone in the wrong place at the wrong time when they are denied trial and due process? If there's not enough evidence to warrant charges, then there's not enough evidence to hold them. What you're advocating is arbitrary detention, based on the presumption of guilt: a concept more fit for a Stalinesque totalitarian state than a western democracy. So you'd just release them all, right? Perhaps we could release them all in your neighbourhood? A human being, having committed no crime and being stateless, is entitled to his liberty. Quote
Stoker Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state's armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not quality. Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. Can you tell the difference between a member of the Taliban and a member of Al-Qaeda? This sounds like the members of the SS that would steal and/or kill for regular soldiers uniforms when the Soviets advanced....... Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Argus Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Thank you for affirming my belief that the lefties neither know what to do with them nor particularly care. I'm sorry if my explanation was too byzantine for you, but I put it in the simplest terms possible. You mean simplistic. Charge them? With what? Is there some crime in travelling a thousand miles to join a terrorist group, being trained in bomb making and murder and becoming a member of their little army? I don't think so. And how exactly are we supossed to know if someone is a terrorist, a soldier or someone in the wrong place at the wrong time when they are denied trial and due process? What kind of trial can you hold? What they did, leaving their homes, travelling to Afghanistan, and joining Osama bin Laden's terrorist group, was perfectly "legal" in Afghanistan at the time. So what kind of a trial do you hold? Do you accuse them of belonging to Al Quaeda? Fine. But that wasn't a crime in Afghanistan, was it? Frankly, I'd settle this by simply turning them over to the current Afghan government, which would immediately stick them in a deep, dark hole in the ground forever. I think the Americans are being kind by keeping them in Cuba.If there's not enough evidence to warrant charges, then there's not enough evidence to hold them. What you're advocating is arbitrary detention, based on the presumption of guilt: a concept more fit for a Stalinesque totalitarian state than a western democracy.Legalistic twaddle. If a man journeys to Afghanistan and joins Al Quaeda's ten thousand man army he's guilty enough, as far as I'm concerned, and the world would be a better place without him in it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Can you tell the difference between a member of the Taliban and a member of Al-Qaeda?This sounds like the members of the SS that would steal and/or kill for regular soldiers uniforms when the Soviets advanced....... I don't think any of them even wore uniforms, as such, unless you consider dirty robes and long, dirty beards to be uniforms. However, most of the Al Quaeda people are Arabs, fanatics who travelled to Afghanistan to join Osama bin Laden. Sift them out and put a bullet in their heads. Or if you want to make the lefties happy "repatriate" them, back to their homelands, and let their own governments shoot them - which most probably woulld. I mean, what do you do with them? Suppose you have a Saudi. You can't very well release him in Cuba. So you either send him back to Saudi Arabia, where he'll immediately be arrested, or you send him back to Afghanistan where he'll immediately be arrested. In either even he'll be a helluva lot worse off than he was in Cuba. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
caesar Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 ook, many of them were nothing more than in the wrong place at the wrong time. If a bunch of foreigners invaded my home; I wouldn't wait to get on a uniform.l It is self defense. Many have already been released and recieved home with open arms. Quote
Black Dog Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Can you tell the difference between a member of the Taliban and a member of Al-Qaeda? It's not my job to determine that. If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. What kind of trial can you hold? What they did, leaving their homes, travelling to Afghanistan, and joining Osama bin Laden's terrorist group, was perfectly "legal" in Afghanistan at the time. So what kind of a trial do you hold? Do you accuse them of belonging to Al Quaeda? Fine. But that wasn't a crime in Afghanistan, was it? Frankly, I'd settle this by simply turning them over to the current Afghan government, which would immediately stick them in a deep, dark hole in the ground forever. I think the Americans are being kind by keeping them in Cuba. If there's evidence they were involved in a terrorist conspiracy, they can be charged accordingly. If they are accussed of murder or war crimes, they can be charged accordingly. However, if there's insufficient evidence to determine if any detainees can be charged with specific crimes, they should be released. Suspension of the basic rights to a fair trial and due process simply because you have a hate on for Arabs is unacceptable. Legalistic twaddle. If a man journeys to Afghanistan and joins Al Quaeda's ten thousand man army he's guilty enough, as far as I'm concerned, and the world would be a better place without him in it. Civilization and western democracies are founded on such "twaddle". Guilt by association is not one of those principles. You are excercising the same logic as those in Iraq who behead civilians and bomb fellow Iraqis: "Well, if tehy are foreign or working with the foreigners, they're guilty enough and teh world is better off without them." (besides which: "ten thousand man army"? where did you pull that out of?) Quote
Stoker Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 Old news....... In addition, President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists. Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Although the United States does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate Afghani government, the President determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Convention And Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Thats America's postion, and if you agree with it or not, it's a nasty war and it's light years better then how the other side treats prisoners. And if their are some innocent people in the American camps, unlike the people held by the terrorists, they will eventaly be released....alive. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Guest eureka Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 That part of the Geneva Convention has already been shown by scholars to be incapable of application against such armies as the Taliban had. It's context is in the world of advanced nations. Simple economics make the idea of uniforms inapplicable. How did they not conduct their operations in "accordance with the laws and customs of war?" The laws and customs of war include the resistance of an invader by guerilla action. They do not require that an army must form squares in the desert. in order for an action to be legitimate. Quote
caesar Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 Thats America's postion, and if you agree with it or not, it's a nasty war and it's light years better then how the other side treats prisoners. Don't be too sure. Even the terrorists did not start beheading westerners until AFTER information on Americans torturing prisons became common knowledge. By the way Iraq was not a legal war; it was an illegal invasion. War was not even declared. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.