[Shade]

Let's be honest thought, what commands more respect? Having been the man who invaded Iraq, or the man who got sucked off in the oval office?

That would probably depend on which sex you ask

[redmenace]

Does it matter if they find that he's acted illegally? It's not like he can be prosecuted while he's in office. The sad thing is he's the kind of president who would declare martial law to stay in office forever.

Funny, some conservatives said the same about Bill Clinton.

Clinton got a blowjob and then said it was not sex.

Bush decided to invade a country, lied into public about it, went in guns blazing and now tens of thousands of Iraqis, plus 2000+ american servicemen and some other dudes too, are dead.

hmmmmmmmm

Funny, there are of simularities involved between administrations. Also, you are throwing up a red herring. All of those things have nothing to do with whether Bush would declare marshall law in order maintain his presidency. Might possibly be a testiment to his character or lack there of. But then a similiar argument can be made of Bill Clinton and his scandals.

However, I was only trying to point out obvious bias and in some ways shed some light on the unfortunate character of perceptions that pervade either side of the political spectrum. I am definatly not going to sit here and debate whether one presidency was far superior to another. Nor am I going to get into a pissing contest over a comparison of Clinton's and Bush's foreign policy. True I am partly to blame for the tangent, but I just felt the need to compare

[Mefustae]

I love how their main arguement about Al-Qaeda prisoners don't deserve the Geneva Convention is because they [Al-Qaeda] don't have to apply themselves to it, and that somehow means that niether does the US. It's the same basic arguement - 'they don't have to do it, so we don't have to either' - they're using against the Kyoto Protocol if i'm not mistaken

[redmenace]

Kyoto argument is that we want China to sign off as well. But meaning that we shouldn't follow it doesn't make logical sense. However, the Kyoto protocal is a unfairly punishes some and rewards other. It forces some countries to make huge cuts while others that claim to have made progress have only done so because it was economically in their best interests ie Germany. But the underlying interest for the US is that they don't want to give the Chinese basically a competitive advantage by polluting all they want with out the limits of Kyoto. And the Chinese don't want to join because they want to maintain their explosive growth rate. This is all speculative and schetchy as it is all from memory.

In regaurds to the Geneva Convention, the main argument is that they don't fall under the geneva convention as they are not uniformed member of a standing military.

[aldo_14]

I love how their main arguement about Al-Qaeda prisoners don't deserve the Geneva Convention is because they [Al-Qaeda] don't have to apply themselves to it, and that somehow means that niether does the US. It's the same basic arguement - 'they don't have to do it, so we don't have to either' - they're using against the Kyoto Protocol if i'm not mistaken

Except that even illegal combatants have rights under the Geneva conventions, and also I believe can be held under the jurisdiction of national law (i.e. Afghani).   Anyone carrying a weapon (it does not require a uniform - this originates from such things as laws of liberation, like the French resistance during WW2 for example) is regarded as a POW under the Geneva convention, and if there is a doubt then a competent and fair tribunal is required to determine the POW-or-otherwise status of the combatant.  If the person is a terrorist - and that would require terrorist actions against civillians (i.e. not bombing US troops in Iraq but bombing mosques), they are not covered by the Geneva convention but international humanitarian law still applies.  Of course, one of the principle criticisms of the likes of Guantanamo is that there are vastly insufficient safeguards to ensure the people who are there should even be there (for example, those abducted by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and handed over to US forces for a bounty).

Kyoto argument is that we want China to sign off as well. But meaning that we shouldn't follow it doesn't make logical sense. However, the Kyoto protocal is a unfairly punishes some and rewards other. It forces some countries to make huge cuts while others that claim to have made progress have only done so because it was economically in their best interests ie Germany. But the underlying interest for the US is that they don't want to give the Chinese basically a competitive advantage by polluting all they want with out the limits of Kyoto. And the Chinese don't want to join because they want to maintain their explosive growth rate. This is all speculative and schetchy as it is all from memory.

In regaurds to the Geneva Convention, the main argument is that they don't fall under the geneva convention as they are not uniformed member of a standing military.

It shouldn't really matter what China does, in all fairness; the 'but they haven't' attitude that countries have to this sort of problem is what holds back any progress.  Of course, removing emissions has financial benefits - the 'credits' accrued can be sold to countries over their targets, something which IIRC can benefit Russia in particular.  I think, also, that China has very high total emissions (~3500metric tonnes to ~5900 for the US, and 2nd overall), but very low per-person (don't know the figures, but Australia is the highest per-capita).  I think we have to look at our countries, anyways, before criticising the actions of others.  The US has set 2010 targets that, though creative wording, equate to an actual rise on current levels.  The UK, despite 3 successive manifesto promises by the government, is consistently failing and on track to miss again emissions targets.  We simply can't ask the developing nations - and particularly the 3rd world ones - to change from cheap but polluting technology when we as the worlds most advanced nations are unable to.  As it stands the US - and it does often come back to the US, because they are IMO the worlds leader in not just producing but being able to remove emissions - is only really participating in a wholly voluntary pact (with the likes of India) which allows nations to set targets but has no mechanisms to actually enforce them.

The Chinese are, of course, signatories of Kyoto.  Both China and India  are, but are exempted because they are classed as developing nations; largely because they were not contributors (to anything beyond a negligable degree) to the last 50 years or so of industrial emissions that have led to the current situation.  China have made noises, IIRC, about meeting targets etc from Kyoto, but I don't know how serious they are.

[redmenace]

I love how their main arguement about Al-Qaeda prisoners don't deserve the Geneva Convention is because they [Al-Qaeda] don't have to apply themselves to it, and that somehow means that niether does the US. It's the same basic arguement - 'they don't have to do it, so we don't have to either' - they're using against the Kyoto Protocol if i'm not mistaken

Except that even illegal combatants have rights under the Geneva conventions, and also I believe can be held under the jurisdiction of national law (i.e. Afghani). Anyone carrying a weapon (it does not require a uniform - this originates from such things as laws of liberation, like the French resistance during WW2 for example) is regarded as a POW under the Geneva convention, and if there is a doubt then a competent and fair tribunal is required to determine the POW-or-otherwise status of the combatant. If the person is a terrorist - and that would require terrorist actions against civillians (i.e. not bombing US troops in Iraq but bombing mosques), they are not covered by the Geneva convention but international humanitarian law still applies. Of course, one of the principle criticisms of the likes of Guantanamo is that there are vastly insufficient safeguards to ensure the people who are there should even be there (for example, those abducted by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and handed over to US forces for a bounty).

Kyoto argument is that we want China to sign off as well. But meaning that we shouldn't follow it doesn't make logical sense. However, the Kyoto protocal is a unfairly punishes some and rewards other. It forces some countries to make huge cuts while others that claim to have made progress have only done so because it was economically in their best interests ie Germany. But the underlying interest for the US is that they don't want to give the Chinese basically a competitive advantage by polluting all they want with out the limits of Kyoto. And the Chinese don't want to join because they want to maintain their explosive growth rate. This is all speculative and schetchy as it is all from memory.

In regaurds to the Geneva Convention, the main argument is that they don't fall under the geneva convention as they are not uniformed member of a standing military.

It shouldn't really matter what China does, in all fairness; the 'but they haven't' attitude that countries have to this sort of problem is what holds back any progress. Of course, removing emissions has financial benefits - the 'credits' accrued can be sold to countries over their targets, something which IIRC can benefit Russia in particular. I think, also, that China has very high total emissions (~3500metric tonnes to ~5900 for the US, and 2nd overall), but very low per-person (don't know the figures, but Australia is the highest per-capita). I think we have to look at our countries, anyways, before criticising the actions of others. The US has set 2010 targets that, though creative wording, equate to an actual rise on current levels. The UK, despite 3 successive manifesto promises by the government, is consistently failing and on track to miss again emissions targets. We simply can't ask the developing nations - and particularly the 3rd world ones - to change from cheap but polluting technology when we as the worlds most advanced nations are unable to. As it stands the US - and it does often come back to the US, because they are IMO the worlds leader in not just producing but being able to remove emissions - is only really participating in a wholly voluntary pact (with the likes of India) which allows nations to set targets but has no mechanisms to actually enforce them.

The Chinese are, of course, signatories of Kyoto. Both China and India are, but are exempted because they are classed as developing nations; largely because they were not contributors (to anything beyond a negligable degree) to the last 50 years or so of industrial emissions that have led to the current situation. China have made noises, IIRC, about meeting targets etc from Kyoto, but I don't know how serious they are.

Honestly I don't know enough about it so I have to claim ignorance in terms of Kyoto.

But I thought that we had that same argument before too about the Geneva Convention. But, are the "laws of liberation" a legally pertinent to the US? Meaning are they a legal document that applies to the US? Where in the convention does it say that the bearing of arms make someone a legal combatant?

[Kosh]

However, the Kyoto protocal is a unfairly punishes some and rewards other. It forces some countries to make huge cuts while others that claim to have made progress have only done so because it was economically in their best interests ie Germany. But the underlying interest for the US is that they don't want to give the Chinese basically a competitive advantage by polluting all they want with out the limits of Kyoto. And the Chinese don't want to join because they want to maintain their explosive growth rate.

How exactly is it unfair that America, the richest country in the world, would be asked to spend more money than a relatively poor, communist country? You assume that America already has competitive advantages (most likely in manufacturing), which it doesn't.

Honestly I don't know enough about it so I have to claim ignorance in terms of Kyoto.

Then why were you just saying it is unfair? Because that is what Rush Limbaugh said? Don't be a parrot.


But here is another thing to think about. Why should Bush get away with things that are blatantly illegal under US law? That nuclear deal with India is against the law, using the NSA to spy on American citizens in America is illegal, and there are probably a bunch of others too.

[aldo_14]

Honestly I don't know enough about it so I have to claim ignorance in terms of Kyoto.

But I thought that we had that same argument before too about the Geneva Convention. But, are the "laws of liberation" a legally pertinent to the US? Meaning are they a legal document that applies to the US? Where in the convention does it say that the bearing of arms make someone a legal combatant?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
(NB: 4/2 doesn't say whether all conditions have to be fulfilled; this is further discussed below in the ICRC statement and arguably does have ambiguity regarding the unlawful combatant status, but even this would not justify Guantanamo bay etc; there is also a potential issue of 4/4)

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList405/8C4F3170C0C25CDDC1257045002CD4A2
b. In non-international armed conflict

In non-international armed conflict combatant status does not exist. Prisoner of war or civilian protected status under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, respectively, do not apply. Members of organized armed groups are entitled to no special status under the laws of non-international armed conflict and may be prosecuted under domestic criminal law if they have taken part in hostilities. However, the international humanitarian law of non-international armed conflict - as reflected in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions where applicable, and customary international humanitarian law – as well as applicable domestic and international human rights law all provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

6. Does Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions treat "terrorists" the same as it does soldiers?

One of main achievements of Additional Protocol I concerns limitations on the methods and means of warfare introduced in order to better protect civilians. For example, it unequivocally prohibits acts of terrorism, such as attacks against civilians or civilian objects. The treaty also explicitly prohibits acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population. Needless to say, persons suspected of such acts are liable for criminal prosecution.

Additional Protocol I does not grant prisoner of war status to persons who unlawfully participate in hostilities. It reserves this status to members of the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict in the sense of the Protocol. Such armed forces must be organized, be under a command responsible to that party and be subject to an internal disciplinary system that enforces compliance with humanitarian law. Moreover, members of armed forces must distinguish themselves from the civilian population in order to be entitled to prisoner of war status upon capture. While traditionally the wearing of a uniform or of a distinctive sign and the carrying of arms openly was required, States parties to the Protocol agreed that in very exceptional circumstances, such as wars of national liberation, this requirement could be less stringent. The carrying of arms openly would be sufficient as a means of distinction.
[/b]

This article - http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5MYJ5E/$FILE/George+Aldrich_3_final.pdf?OpenElement - is I believe from the German red cross, and further discusses the legality of detentions.  I believe the gist is (not had time to anything beyond skim, going to bed) is that Taliban soldiers are not exempted from the Geneva convention, but Al-Queda 'soldiers' (note; this is quite fuzzy, as I'm not entirely clear how such individuals could be identified as such) would be (but not exempted from international humanitarian law), and that in any case a tribunal is required to identify their status.

(note; http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5P8AVK/$FILE/Avril+McDonald-final.pdf?OpenElement is a response document to the above; the latter page is notable for both identifying that the Guantanamo prisoners do have legal rights under Article 3, and disagree that it is correct to hold Al-Queda members as 'illegal combatants')

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/$File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf is another, longer discussion.

IIRC the US standard in Afghanistan for an unlawful combatant was an adult male wearing olive clothes, with a wristwatch and weapon.  I'm a little unclear on the exact definition, although this is a related article.

Insofar as 'laws of liberation', which i presume means the sort of French Resistance analogy; I don't know if there is an international definition of 'freedom fighter'; I very much doubt it, though, due to the difficulties of qualifying such a thing.  For example, the Iraqi insurgency (not those groups bombing mosques and trying to create sectarian war, but probably those targeting US and Iraqi government forces) could be said to be a legitimate resitance force, in the context of expelling an occupying army and removing a government (Arguable not elected through true democratic means - for example, consider that Al-Sadrs militia controlled with US consent many areas where voting took place, ensuring a Sunni* victory through intimidation) that has been opressive (again, citing such things as over 10,000 prisoners held by coalition troops without charge or trial, or the scandals relating to prisoner torture by the Iraqi police, or the alleged death squads).  The validity of such an assertion would be very hard to place in a neutral and thus verifiable context.  My suggestion would be that any group attacking military targets can be regarded in such a manner, but those commiting terrorist atrocities cannot.  The 3rd group would be those targeting civillian security structures, like the police, and that i'm not sure about as it would definately require strong qualification as to the 'crimes' or otherwise of those security structures.

*you'll have to forgive me if I get the 2 groups mixed up

In any case, the key thing is probably the requirement for a tribunal to determine POW status, and that there is no exemption under humanitarian law to allow for such things as torture or arbitrary detention.

[redmenace]

However, the Kyoto protocal is a unfairly punishes some and rewards other. It forces some countries to make huge cuts while others that claim to have made progress have only done so because it was economically in their best interests ie Germany. But the underlying interest for the US is that they don't want to give the Chinese basically a competitive advantage by polluting all they want with out the limits of Kyoto. And the Chinese don't want to join because they want to maintain their explosive growth rate.

How exactly is it unfair that America, the richest country in the world, would be asked to spend more money than a relatively poor, communist country? You assume that America already has competitive advantages (most likely in manufacturing), which it doesn't.

Honestly I don't know enough about it so I have to claim ignorance in terms of Kyoto.

Then why were you just saying it is unfair? Because that is what Rush Limbaugh said? Don't be a parrot.


But here is another thing to think about. Why should Bush get away with things that are blatantly illegal under US law? That nuclear deal with India is against the law, using the NSA to spy on American citizens in America is illegal, and there are probably a bunch of others too.

A:I read a oped piece in the WASHINGTON POST not Rush Limbaugh, which I haven't even listened to since the beginning of 2004. Now would you like me to accuse you of being a smacktard mouth piece for Al Franken? Which I will not. I show you due respect, I suggest you do the same. This is not the first time you have acted like this, sir. I also, very maturly, cough cough, admitted to not knowing about it. I also don't really consider China a developing country since it is a full fledge member of the security council. But regaurdless, at what point do you stop considering a country developing? Also the blurb about competitive advantage doesn't make any sense.

B. Bush isn't the first to blatantly ignore the law and he won't be the last. This doesn't excuse the behavior, just an observation. Whether he can be punished for ordering the spying on civilian phone conversations to abroad I highly doubt it. He himself would need to commit a crime that was punisheable by impeachment to be punished. But whether it is even illegal is still murkey. Domestic calls need a warrant. There is a slight difference. I am not saying I support it or not just pointing it out.

[WMCoolmon]

First, I'd like to drop this little nutshell in here.

To my knowledge, it is not wartime. Such would require a vote by Congress, and AFAIK there has been no such vote.

As a result, if the President is acting under any kind of 'wartime' pretense to take advantage of conditions enumerated in any kind of legal document, he is acting under false pretenses and likely taking illegal actions.

[Mefustae]

The arguement of whether illegal acts have been perpetrated by Bush and his Administration is completely irrelevant. The real question here is; who actually has the balls to stop them?

[Nuke]

yep, nuke the world its time to start over

[Janos]

yep, nuke the world its time to start over

hey, we don't want to have any part in this stupidity of yours thanks now go away

[Ford Prefect]

First, I'd like to drop this little nutshell in here.

To my knowledge, it is not wartime. Such would require a vote by Congress, and AFAIK there has been no such vote.

As a result, if the President is acting under any kind of 'wartime' pretense to take advantage of conditions enumerated in any kind of legal document, he is acting under false pretenses and likely taking illegal actions.

That's what makes our patented War On Terror™ such an amazing deal. Let me ask you, what would you say if I told you that you could get all the public fear and panic of a name-brand war, but without all the hastle of getting "permission" or adhering to the "Constitution"? Sounds like an unbelievable offer, right? Well you're in luck, because if you call now, you can get the War On Terror™, as seen on TV, for the unbelievable price of the American economy! BUT WAIT! IT GETS BETTER! If you're like me, you're sick of expensive wars that just end when they're "won" or "lost". All that investment and only four years of public hive-mentality and suppression of free speech? GIMME A BREAK! The War On Terror™ doesn't end! EVER! The secret is its patented "TruthFlex" technology, streamlined with the latest in "bull****". You'll have the public bending over for more as long as you want! CALL NOW!

[Kosh]

I read a oped piece in the WASHINGTON POST not Rush Limbaugh, which I haven't even listened to since the beginning of 2004. Now would you like me to accuse you of being a smacktard mouth piece for Al Franken?

Who?

I also don't really consider China a developing country since it is a full fledge member of the security council

What does that matter? After World War 2 the Soviet Union and Taiwan were both developing, yet they were full fledge members of the security council.

People here usually make the equivelent of $1000 a YEAR, so do you consider this country to be developed? Developed and developing are terms that describe a countries' economic status, not its position in international organizations.

And I'm sorry if my "parrot" comment bothered you, it was not intended to cause offence. But look at it this way, I have been hearing exactly the same rhetoric for years about Kyoto; then you repeat the same thing everyone else says without really understanding what Kyoto really is and what its regulations (or rules or however you want to describe them) are.

[aldo_14]

Being a member of the security council wouldn't entail Chinas economic status, anyways, given the size of China in particular plus (crucially) its possession of nuclear weapons.  Worth noting,, as background, that after WW2 the Republic of China was in the Security council, not Taiwan (ROC was of course the government driven out of China during their Civil war, but retained their claim to be the rightful government and were recognised as such by the US - which in turn led to Soviet abstention from the UN and allowed the Korean War), and also that both were allies to the US, UK, etc during the war.

As another note, China has emissions of 2.2 metric tons CO2 per capita, whereas the US has about 19.8 metric tons per capita. Reportedly China has made voluntary cuts in emissions too, and plans to make more, albeit obviously you have to take statements of intent from a dictatorship with a hefty pinch of salt.

[Nuke]

yep, nuke the world its time to start over

hey, we don't want to have any part in this stupidity of yours thanks now go away

dont confuse nihilism for stupidity. mankind has maintained the same cycles for millinia with no true progress. if you cant progress its better to nuke the planet every 10000 years and start over. if it renderes the world dead, noone would be left to care. furthermore people are also rather arrogant about the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. you could drop every bomb in the arsonal and nature would win every time. nukes are a good way to reset the human decadence meter though. its like spraying for bugs, no mater how much raid you use, they will be back.

[aldo_14]

dont confuse nihilism for stupidity. mankind has maintained the same cycles for millinia with no true progress. if you cant progress its better to nuke the planet every 10000 years and start over. if it renderes the world dead, noone would be left to care.

I'm not convinced by this.  how about you go and jump off a very tall building, and let us know how it works out for you?

[Janos]

yep, nuke the world its time to start over

hey, we don't want to have any part in this stupidity of yours thanks now go away

dont confuse nihilism for stupidity.

Do you think nihilism is somehow inherently better than other ideologies? If so, why?

mankind has maintained the same cycles for millinia with no true progress. if you cant progress its better to nuke the planet every 10000 years and start over. if it renderes the world dead, noone would be left to care. furthermore people are also rather arrogant about the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. you could drop every bomb in the arsonal and nature would win every time. nukes are a good way to reset the human decadence meter though. its like spraying for bugs, no mater how much raid you use, they will be back.

this human decadence is rather interesting please tell me about greece and sumeria and france and soviet union and how they are similar and just what this True Progress would be and how would one measure it if not by standards measurable to us

[Mefustae]

I'd prefer to wipe out humanity with a bio-engineered super-virus, capable of striking Humans and Humans alone. Only the best and brightest [and me] will be saved, to live in equalibrium with the environment... y'know, essentially what they planned in the book 'Rainbow Six'.