Guantanamo is setting up a trial to convict 5 Al Qaeda of war crimes.

The only problem with this is if you grant the prisoners the status of war criminal you have to grant them the international protections and conventions given to war criminals. What US has done is arrange the full status of war criminal to its advantage for ease of prosecution, but then denied to the full extent any of the international protections given to war criminals under the Geneva Conventions and other rules going back to the League of Nations. What US has done is stripped the prisoner's rights wherever possible to gain advantage but then reapplied full war criminal status in order to take advantage of the prisoner's lack of any rights.


I can't think of anything more stupid and arrogant than the US criticizing Cuba's human rights record but then setting up a torture camp on their soil. This is a good example of the blind arrogance of the Bush administration and its hypocrisy.

I could not agree more, great lecture!

__________________
There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.
~Archibald MacLeish

Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I found this paragraph interesting:
Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. However, nations that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason. Citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not protected by it (Article 4: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it".), whether they are spies or terrorists. Also, citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed and do not abide by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are not protected by them. (Article 2, of both Conventions: "[The High Contracting Parties] shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to [a Power which is not a contracting party], if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof". note: emphasis added)

I have always wondered why the hell we extend any of the benefits of the Geneva Conventions to parties who are neither signatories to it nor extend the terms and benefits to us.

The Geneva Conventions are rules of war for a "gentlemen's war"

Neither our enemies (past) in Viet Nam nor those we fight now in Afghanistan and Iraq abide by these rules of war ......until they do we shouldn't either.

__________________
CHECK THIS OUT ..... graybeard's "tribute" to Humble Lasher -----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwFjt2x9Rws ...and another... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECK3Ed1CN0

Political Correctness defined :
A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I can't think of anything more stupid and arrogant than the US criticizing Cuba's human rights record but then setting up a torture camp on their soil. This is a good example of the blind arrogance of the Bush administration and its hypocrisy.

Yes..I know, you are concerned for the 3 terrosrists who were "Water Boarded"....and in true Lib fashion you use moral equivalence to "justify" your hatred of your own Nation.

__________________
There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.
~Archibald MacLeish

Some MORE rules of warfare our enemy doesn't bother with:

Conduct of warfare

Among other issues, the laws of war address declaration of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; military necessity along with distinction and proportionality; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons which cause unnecessary suffering.

It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform, like fighting under a white flag, is perfidy which is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

__________________
CHECK THIS OUT ..... graybeard's "tribute" to Humble Lasher -----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwFjt2x9Rws ...and another... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECK3Ed1CN0

Political Correctness defined :
A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Only one of our home bred morons like Amazed doesn't see the difference between "Defending Al Qaeda" and defending an objective rule of law. Most of the rightards in this room are too dumb to notice they would make very serviceable Nazis or communists because they whole heartedly back the government without question. Never once to these people foul their purity of thought with any notions of objective rules or equal laws for government and people. None of them are really too bright which is probably the entry point of their politics.

More weaseling excuse making for our corrupt government. I love these people because they cite the laws that suit them while ignoring in broad daylight that our government - which they pose as a clean and judging authority capable of dictating who deserves and doesn't deserve rights - just blew away the law and standards of government with an international war crime WMD claim. I love these people because they are so brainwashed and deluded that they literally don't notice their brazen hypocrisy and effete selection of laws - or really, realities.

If we had any credibility we would extend Geneva Conventions protections to ALL prisoners. We've already used this phony excuse to torture innocent people without apology. These same people who ask us to believe they're honest evaluators of eligibility for rights completely omit those people and how they were violated by the 'higher sense of things' these people profess. The possibility that a government would subjectively label all non-first world combatants as "terrorists" when in fact they may actually be victims of US government abuses or even crimes, is a travesty that would almost deserve the actions those subjects are taking (if you read our own Constitution).