Still Not a Fascist

[jts92]

Needless to say, I was surprised to find 49 posts to my original post this morning... I was also disappointed to find that people continued to equate the President with a slaveholder. Reasonable people can disagree, and that doesn't make him (or me) a nazi or a racist. Namecalling does not advance our democracy, and its not intelligent dialogue about issues we disagree on. Why can't we have reasonable discussions about issues we disagree about instead of demonizing everyone who has a different (but legitimate) worldview?

[Ali]

Why can't we have reasonable discussions about issues we disagree about instead of demonizing everyone who has a different (but legitimate) worldview? because, in one anothers' eyes, our worldviews are NOT legitimate.

If you can give me one logical reason why I should support the GOP, then I might.

This reason cannot include the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom'.

[brendan]

because, in one anothers' eyes, our worldviews are NOT legitimate.

If you can give me one logical reason why I should support the GOP, then I might.

This reason cannot include the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom'.

how about...the power to change hearts.

[D_Raay]

Needless to say, I was surprised to find 49 posts to my original post this morning... I was also disappointed to find that people continued to equate the President with a slaveholder. Reasonable people can disagree, and that doesn't make him (or me) a nazi or a racist. Namecalling does not advance our democracy, and its not intelligent dialogue about issues we disagree on. Why can't we have reasonable discussions about issues we disagree about instead of demonizing everyone who has a different (but legitimate) worldview?
I like your approach jts, however it is Bush himself who has reduced this to a hate campaign against him. The time for polite discussion has passed. People are very angry both here and abroad.

[ASsman]

I was also disappointed to find that people continued to equate the President with a slaveholder.
Hahaha, wow. I will cease to attempt and make my point. It is obvious it is lost in the labyrinth that is your brain.
Haha, all I asked for was a mature conversation. But I guess even that is too much for someone who believes so much bs.

[Ace42]

I was also disappointed to find that people continued to equate the President with a slaveholder.

That's a straw-man argument. It was explained quite clearly the distinction between equating the President with a slaveholder, and equating him with someone who supports slavery. Although, to be honest, equate is not the right word. An analogy does not "equate" to the thing it describes. And what is forcing people to do a job they *do not want to do* (invade Iraq) under fear of imprisonment, without the ability to quit, or even leave when their contract has expired (stop loss) equate to but slavery?

Why can't we have reasonable discussions about issues we disagree about instead of demonizing everyone who has a different (but legitimate) worldview?

Bush's world view is NOT legitimate. He has broken international law, and the Geneva conventions, this makes him a *war criminal*. That is the dictionary definition of "illegitimate."

However, the reason we cannot have a reasonable discussion about this is that you seem to be unwilling / incapable of actually understanding the words coming out of our mouths. Did you just see the word "slavery" and say "hey, there aren't any more cotton-fields around the deep south anymore!" and ignore all the other words around it in the posts?

[Ali]

how about...the power to change hearts.erm, I might need a bit more than that.

[infidel]

how about...the power to change hearts.
how about the power to restrain farts...

[ClifRa JOnes]

Bush's world view is NOT legitimate. He has broken international law, and the Geneva conventions, this makes him a *war criminal*. That is the dictionary definition of "illegitimate."


Have you ever read the Geneva Conventions? My thinking is the answer is no. So read this:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/
combatant status

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)


The term combatant does not apply to terrorists. Terrorists do not qualify for any protection under the Geneva Conventions. The only reason thay get any humane treatment is out of the good graces of this country and others. (See bold text)

A little more clarification:


From Convention III, Art. 4 A. Subparagraph 2.

(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.


As with any legal document it is entirely up to interpretation. There are also other sections which IMO make the determination of who qualifies as a POW difficult to determine. It could be argued that to err on the side of caution is the best policy. I have not read every article of these conventions but from what I have briefly researched it would seem to me that this administration has not violated the spirit to which these conventions were written.

As far as international law, I admit ignorance and don't have the time now to research it.

[brendan]

erm, I might need a bit more than that.

freedom fries???

[ASsman]

Hahahahahha, nice Cliff. This is the first time I've seen someone use the Geneva convention to suppor torture. HAHAHAHAHA, god that kills me. (wipes tears from his eyes)

[Ace42]

The term combatant does not apply to terrorists. Terrorists do not qualify for any protection under the Geneva Conventions. The only reason thay get any humane treatment is out of the good graces of this country and others. (See bold text)

Except that the invasion of Iraq is NOT an action against "terrorists" but against a sovereign nation. And yes, I have read the geneva and hague convetions, not to mention the UN constitution and charter.

As with any legal document it is entirely up to interpretation.

Yes, which is why murderers and shoplifters are never convicted. Because they say "it depends how you interpret 'theft' and 'murder'"

As with any legal document, it is not "entirely up to interpretation." - NEVER has "it depends how you define 'murder'" come up as a defense. Legal documentation is only "up to interpretation" when you are choosing to misunderstand the words in order to commit a crime.

I have not read every article of these conventions but from what I have briefly researched it would seem to me that this administration has not violated the spirit to which these conventions were written.

And yet Ramsey Clark (former US attourney general), Kofi Annan, and anyone with a cursory understanding of the English Language and the written word disagree. Countries follow the "letter of the law" not "the spirit of the law" - you don't get to pick hwat laws to follow, or to say "I choose not to interpret the words in that way"

The only reason the US gets away with it is because no-one is powerful enough to stop them. That doesn't mean they are guiltless.

As far as international law, I admit ignorance and don't have the time now to research it.

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

Try that.

Oh, and just because you have trouble understanding simple English, and applying it literally, that doesn't mean the rest of the world does. These laws are non-negotiable and not "subject to interpretation" - in no other court would "Well, I want to change that law" or "I hit him so that he couldn't hit me at some unfixed future date" stand up. It is ignorant to assume that countries do not need similar rules.