If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
In message , Bill Graham
writes "DRS" wrote in message news:gaSdndFLGuUoe1 ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message [...] The Geneva Convention does not, as far as I know, offer any protection whatever to combatants who are not part of any recognized military force. If you think it does, show me where. Combatants captured not in proper uniform are not POWs and have no rights at all -- they can be and have been just executed on the spot. That's been the rule for at least a few hundred years. Every person has rights. Many of the detainees at Guananemo have been shown to have not been involved in terrorist activities and were captured by mistake. That is why civilised countries insist on the rule of law, where no person may be detained without due process, something the Bush administration fought every step of the way. It is not acceptable to merely deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be established by evidence. In wartime, anyone who is a citizen of the other side that is caught out of uniform in your territory is a spy, and can be shot unceremoniously. No... Where did you get that stupid idea? Most countries have the death penalty for treason . A spy is tried as a CIVILIAN and when found guilty by due process is sentenced. It used to be shooting or hanging. These days in Europe and other civilised parts of the world we don't have the death penalty. We leave that to the axis of evil such as Iran, N.Korea, Israel, China and the USA (the USA executing more than any of the others) So, the argument comes down to things like: Are we really in "wartime"? Not in Iraq or Afghanistan. Technically it is a Police action Who is a citizen of, "The other side"? - Is there an, "other side"? No. There is no "other side" There is no enemy country or Army What is the other sides, "Uniform"? There is no "other side" it is civilian criminals. IOW, things are a lot more complicated that they at first seem. No they are quite simple. And there certainly is lots of room for argument over what is acceptable and what is not. No there is no room at all... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"DRS" wrote in message . au... There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous. The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the illegality of it. Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies eliminating him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of legality/illegality. Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed four million. At what point would you consider it mandatory that the other heads of state in this world become justified in killing him? Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef Stalin? Should we just turn out backs on anything, and not ever kill anybody, no matter what they do? And, in any case, how can you dismiss the whole argument with a half dozen words? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
Bill Graham wrote: Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies eliminating him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of legality/illegality. Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed four million. At what point would you consider it mandatory that the other heads of state in this world become justified in killing him? Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef Stalin? This is a slippery slope, what separates a leader who killed a million from one who killed 900,000. Is 100,000 enough? What about 3,000? Using this measure to justify invading and deposing a leader can have un-intended consequenses. w.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
"DRS" wrote in message . au... There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous. The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the illegality of it. Yes, but you make definitions up as you go along. That doesn't count. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"Walter Banks" wrote in message ... Bill Graham wrote: In wartime, anyone who is a citizen of the other side that is caught out of uniform in your territory is a spy, and can be shot unceremoniously. What about citizens of the other side in their own territory. Many in GitMo were arrested in Afghanistan and Iraq So, the argument comes down to things like: Are we really in "wartime"? Who is a citizen of, "The other side"? - Is there an, "other side"? What is the other sides, "Uniform"? IOW, things are a lot more complicated that they at first seem. And there certainly is lots of room for argument over what is acceptable and what is not. Some good points Bill.. Few seem to be arguing the arrest, most are arguing due process what ever that may be. Treatment of detained persons is a real issue with many different consequences. One of the few politicians in the US that has thought this through is McCain. w.. Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars where armies had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took up arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the conventional rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No uniforms, isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands of people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of conduct that are cut and dried. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
Bill Graham wrote: Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars where armies had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took up arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the conventional rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No uniforms, isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands of people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of conduct that are cut and dried. Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but 200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History before that brought the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors. w.. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"Walter Banks" wrote in message ... Bill Graham wrote: Saddam Hussein killed over two million Iraqi's during his 30 year reign as Iraq's president. To me, this justifies eliminating him. Certainly, it at least raises the "question" of legality/illegality. Maybe he only killed one million. Maybe he killed four million. At what point would you consider it mandatory that the other heads of state in this world become justified in killing him? Were we justified in killing Adolf Hitler? Should we have killed Josef Stalin? This is a slippery slope, what separates a leader who killed a million from one who killed 900,000. Is 100,000 enough? What about 3,000? Using this measure to justify invading and deposing a leader can have un-intended consequenses. w.. This is true, but what other measure is there? Were we justified in supporting England in her war against Hitler? And, if not, then at what point should we have done so in order to protect ourselves? - Or, is no war ever justified? Right now, We call it justification to do whatever we have to do to prevent certain other countries from developing their own nuclear weapon capability. Is this justified? Should we wait for the terrorists to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Washington DC? Should we keep our congressmen in hiding in their own states, and force them to debate bills via satellite hook up? What constitutes, "justification", when it comes down to attacking another country? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
Bill Graham wrote: "Walter Banks" wrote in message This is a slippery slope, what separates a leader who killed a million from one who killed 900,000. Is 100,000 enough? What about 3,000? Using this measure to justify invading and deposing a leader can have un-intended consequenses. This is true, but what other measure is there? Were we justified in supporting England in her war against Hitler? And, if not, then at what point should we have done so in order to protect ourselves? Looking at the very narrow case of attacking a country to dispose a leader and apply the same rules to attacks on the US. I am not justifying either one just thinking through the logic of your statement. w.. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"DRS" wrote in message . au... "Bill Graham" wrote in message "DRS" wrote in message . au... There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the legitimacy of the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it. The invasion of Iraq was unquestionably illegal but the invasion of Afghanistan is legally ambiguous. The invasion of Iraq was not, "unquestionably illegal". I question the illegality of it. Yes, but you make definitions up as you go along. That doesn't count. "Doesn't count"? What are the rules of this "game we are playing"? My definitions come from "Webster's Dictionary of the English Language." It all comes down to exactly that.....Definitions. Like, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", If my interpretation differs from that of the Supreme Court, then I am going to have to break the "law of the land". Sorry about that..... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"Walter Banks" wrote in message ... Bill Graham wrote: Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars where armies had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took up arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the conventional rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No uniforms, isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands of people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of conduct that are cut and dried. Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but 200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History before that brought the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors. w. .. So we need new rules of acceptable conduct. And my question is, are the UN rules, and the Geneva Convention rules, applicable to fighting off these kinds of terrorist actions? And, if not, then what are we to do before new rules are established, and who will establish them? Personally, I don't see any way out right now, but for us to establish our own rules as we go. And this means attacking other rogue countries such as Iran and North Korea as necessary to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons and selling/giving them to terrorists. If there is some other way to prevent this, I am all ears..... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Chris H | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 1st 09 08:24 AM |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 17th 09 11:21 PM |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 17th 09 11:14 PM |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 17th 09 11:04 PM |