billvon 3,107 #1 June 18, 2004 This should be interesting: Rumsfeld, testifying under oath before congress: "Any instructions that have been issued or anything that's been authorized by the department was checked by the lawyers . . . and deemed to be consistent with the Geneva Conventions," Rumsfeld said. http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/printDS/21908.php A newspaper story from May: "Presented last fall with a detailed catalog of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, the U.S. military responded Dec. 24 with a confidential letter to a Red Cross official asserting that many Iraqi prisoners were not entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Conventions." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001936467_iraqdig23.html And today, from an AP story: At the request of CIA Director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered the military to secretly hold a suspected terrorist in Iraq , a Pentagon spokesman said. The suspected terrorist has been held since October without being given an identification number and without the International Committee of the Red Cross being notified, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. Both conditions violate the Geneva Accords on treatment of prisoners of war. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040617/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/shadow_prisoners I will be curious to see whether people try to sweep this example of lying under oath under the carpet, or whether we hold him to the same standards as anyone else in government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 June 18, 2004 QuoteI will be curious to see whether people try to sweep this example of lying under oath under the carpet, or whether we hold him to the same standards as anyone else in government. Stop blowing things out of proportion, Bill. It was only supposed to be temporary he just slipped through the cracks. And besides, they already said that the initial request came from Tenet and he quit. So, case closed. We can ignore this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #3 June 18, 2004 QuoteAt the request of CIA Director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered the military to secretly hold a suspected terrorist in Iraq , a Pentagon spokesman said. ...conditions violate the Geneva Accords on treatment of prisoners of war. So CIA asked SecDef to have the military keep a terrorist in Iraq. CIA shouldn't have, and SecDef probably should've said no, but that's another issue. Do these writers just think everybody qualifies as a prisoner of war? For shit's sake, POW status doesn't freaking apply to every asshole with a bomb.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #4 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteAt the request of CIA Director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered the military to secretly hold a suspected terrorist in Iraq , a Pentagon spokesman said. ...conditions violate the Geneva Accords on treatment of prisoners of war. So CIA asked SecDef to have the military keep a terrorist in Iraq. CIA shouldn't have, and SecDef probably should've said no, but that's another issue. Do these writers just think everybody qualifies as a prisoner of war? For shit's sake, POW status doesn't freaking apply to every asshole with a bomb. Isn't it interesting how the Lefties attitudes towards terrorists have changed since Sept. 11? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 June 18, 2004 QuoteIsn't it interesting how the Lefties attitudes towards terrorists have changed since Sept. 11? Our attitude about terrorists hasn't changed. I don't recall anyone endorsing secret detentions of suspected terrorists that is arguing against it now. But you guys have redefined terrorist. Now it's anyone who opposes the US policies in whatever capacity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #6 June 18, 2004 I'm confused. Did Rumsfeld lie under oath or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #7 June 18, 2004 Technically, from Bill's post, I wouldn't say so. He said they checked with lawyers and the lawyers said it wasn't a violation. I believe that is the case. The lawyers may have been wrong, but I don't think he's lying about checking with them first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #8 June 18, 2004 Quote whether we hold him to the same standards as anyone else in government. like Bill "lying sack-o-shit" Clinton? you had to know someone would bring that up. Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowflake 0 #9 June 18, 2004 Quotelike Bill "lying sack-o-shit" Clinton? you had to know someone would bring that up. How do you know a politician is lying? His lips move and sound comes out. Robert you of all people should know that Why do people get so upset that these guys (politicians of both parties) lie all the time? They have to lie to get elected what makes you think they'll stop then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuote whether we hold him to the same standards as anyone else in government. like Bill "lying sack-o-shit" Clinton? you had to know someone would bring that up. Works for me. Clinton was impeached. Let's put Rumsfeld on trial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #11 June 18, 2004 >>Isn't it interesting how the Lefties attitudes towards terrorists have changed since Sept. 11? << I wouldn;t consider Kennedy too much of a card-carrying lefty. Sure, he has some tendencies, but there's no commie flag in his garage. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #12 June 18, 2004 QuoteIsn't it interesting how the Lefties attitudes towards terrorists have changed since Sept. 11? Indeed. It's interesting to hear anything these political moronic sheep say. It's sad that people are so insecure that they have to align themselves with a group or party and do everything that said group/party says and defends them wether they're wrong or right. People ask me what political alignment I am and I respond, American. I think for myself. I never have and never will be a clone blindly following someone like 95% of the sheep on these boards. I have a brain and use it. I think for myself. I agree with views from both sides. I am intelligent enough to shuffle through the bullshit and decipher for myself what the truth is or probably is. Watch these right and left extremists on these boards and see how they almost always follow the democrat/republican views and defends them regardless of wrong or right everytime. It's both sad and funny at the same time. Think for yourselves, people. Use your pumpkin for something useful. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #13 June 19, 2004 QuoteQuote Do these writers just think everybody qualifies as a prisoner of war? For shit's sake, POW status doesn't freaking apply to every asshole with a bomb. Do we have a "war" on terror, or not? If not, then there's no justification for all the things being done because we're "at war". If so, then the captured terrorists ARE POWs You want to have your cake and eat it too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #14 June 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Do these writers just think everybody qualifies as a prisoner of war? For shit's sake, POW status doesn't freaking apply to every asshole with a bomb. Do we have a "war" on terror, or not? If not, then there's no justification for all the things being done because we're "at war". If so, then the captured terrorists ARE POWs You want to have your cake and eat it too. FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME The Geneva Conventions are very clear about combatants who aren't wearing uniforms, or are wearing uniforms of their opposition. They are NOT afforded the rights granted under the Conventions to LAWFUL COMBATANTS, AND THEREFORE, THEY CAN BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND. Example. Soldiers wearing uniforms are captured. The uniforms are issued by the state or political entity that they represent. Therefore, they are LEGITIMATE prisoners of war, and are by law afforded the treatment set forth in the Protocols. The other example is one of the most misunderstood events in mordern times. "The second dramatic photo is the pistol shot fired by a South Vietnamese official into the head of a captured Viet Cong. It happened during the Tet offensive, when South Vietnamese National Police Chief Gen. Nguyen Loc Loan executed Bay Lop in the streets of Saigon. Griffiths writes, "This incident does show the horror and brutality of war, but it has been portrayed for the most part as unprovoked. Photographer Eddie Adams said Lop 'was the same guy who killed one of Loan's officers and wiped out his whole family.'" Former South Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky writes in his book "Buddha's Child" that Lop was captured "carrying papers identifying himself as a Viet Cong captain in the act of murdering a police sergeant, his wife and three small children. The guerrilla wore civilian clothes. The Geneva Conventions do not extend the protections of prisoner-of-war status to spies, mercenaries and guerrillas who fail to distinguish themselves from civilians." Burkett notes similar executions of German Saboteurs during World War II's Battle of the Bulge, without trials. "Gen. Eisenhower was completely within his authority to order the executions. So was Gen. Loan." The difference was the treatment by the press and the fact that Loan performed the execution personally. When did you read press reports of VCdirected children dropping hand grenades near American GIs? Have you read any Tet press Reports noting that communist forces sent in kids high on opium as a first wave, carrying sticks, to be used as cannon fodder by drawing tracer fire and revealing American positions to the second wave, the ones with the AK-47s? These are merely the major omissions and distortions. There were others. ------------------------- I realize that I'm wasting my time trying to educate the clueless, but I try, nonetheless. That some "peace-loving moslem fundamentalists" have been "mistreated" is far better than they deserve. What they really deserve is shown in the attachment to this posting. Attachment: South Vietnamese National Police Chief Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan whacks Viet Cong Captain Bay Lop. All emphasis is mine. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #15 June 20, 2004 QuoteI realize that I'm wasting my time trying to educate the clueless, but I try, nonetheless. . You are not. Some people won't get it despite a doctorate or reading tons of books....."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #16 June 20, 2004 So we're not at war after all, since the "enemy" doesn't fit the definition. In that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #17 June 20, 2004 So does that post mean you are agreeing with markharju that many of the "abuses" were in fact minor, that they should not stop, and that executions may follow? Or are you simply avoiding the debate and attempting to draw attention to another topic where you feel more secure? ...again...witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #18 June 21, 2004 QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #19 June 21, 2004 Quote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Now you're going to get him talking about his model rockets again. Don't pretend you can do everything exactly as you could, with no restrictions like you could before. Friend of mine was detained and had film confiscated for taking pictures of a bridge and Independence Hall. New York's Transit Agency, the MTA, is seeking to make illegal any photography on it's busses and subways. My personal credit history is now subject to review by TSA and I can be denied boarding based on it. I can't drive down the public city street behind Independence Hall. These are just the ones that pop into my head. I'm sure there are plenty of new regulations and laws that you wouldn't even be aware of until you're in the back of a police car. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #20 June 21, 2004 Quote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #21 June 21, 2004 QuoteQuote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it. Something about not being able to play with toy planes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #22 June 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it. It's not really the ones which Kallend and I are being presently denied (although the right to read whatever you like without being on a government list is downright groovy) that are key, but the ones which the precedent has been set for us to be denied in the future. Like due process, sure, they're only denying it to those brown-skinned folk now, not to worry right? Wrong, due process is one of the core freedoms guaranteed to citizens of the US and it has been erroded by the ability of the President to declare someone an enemy combatant, hold them indefinitely without trial or access to legal representation. What's the next step? You and I disagree with the goverment, and big brother makes us effectively disappear. It's happened before, it can happen again, and say its ok to give up this right in the name of "security" is simply playing with fire. So what right am I most concerned with? Yep, due process. I'd die for my due process, without it, what good is my life anywaY? Something about not being able to play with toy planes? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #23 June 22, 2004 >The Geneva Conventions are very clear about combatants who aren't > wearing uniforms, or are wearing uniforms of their opposition. They are >NOT afforded the rights granted under the Conventions to LAWFUL >COMBATANTS, AND THEREFORE, THEY CAN BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED. IN >OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND. So a US civilian security contractor can legally be beheaded for a clear violation of the Geneva Convention? Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #24 June 23, 2004 Quote>The Geneva Conventions are very clear about combatants who aren't > wearing uniforms, or are wearing uniforms of their opposition. They are >NOT afforded the rights granted under the Conventions to LAWFUL >COMBATANTS, AND THEREFORE, THEY CAN BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED. IN >OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND. So a US civilian security contractor can legally be beheaded for a clear violation of the Geneva Convention? Interesting. If the contractor is a COMBATANT, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #25 June 23, 2004 >If the contractor is a COMBATANT, yes. Interesting. So a group of insurgents come upon a US security contractor driving a truck full of food for the military. He pulls a gun but they overpower him. He is then "tried" and beheaded in summary execution for violations of the Geneva Conventions. You really OK with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 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. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Guest #14 June 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Do these writers just think everybody qualifies as a prisoner of war? For shit's sake, POW status doesn't freaking apply to every asshole with a bomb. Do we have a "war" on terror, or not? If not, then there's no justification for all the things being done because we're "at war". If so, then the captured terrorists ARE POWs You want to have your cake and eat it too. FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME The Geneva Conventions are very clear about combatants who aren't wearing uniforms, or are wearing uniforms of their opposition. They are NOT afforded the rights granted under the Conventions to LAWFUL COMBATANTS, AND THEREFORE, THEY CAN BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND. Example. Soldiers wearing uniforms are captured. The uniforms are issued by the state or political entity that they represent. Therefore, they are LEGITIMATE prisoners of war, and are by law afforded the treatment set forth in the Protocols. The other example is one of the most misunderstood events in mordern times. "The second dramatic photo is the pistol shot fired by a South Vietnamese official into the head of a captured Viet Cong. It happened during the Tet offensive, when South Vietnamese National Police Chief Gen. Nguyen Loc Loan executed Bay Lop in the streets of Saigon. Griffiths writes, "This incident does show the horror and brutality of war, but it has been portrayed for the most part as unprovoked. Photographer Eddie Adams said Lop 'was the same guy who killed one of Loan's officers and wiped out his whole family.'" Former South Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky writes in his book "Buddha's Child" that Lop was captured "carrying papers identifying himself as a Viet Cong captain in the act of murdering a police sergeant, his wife and three small children. The guerrilla wore civilian clothes. The Geneva Conventions do not extend the protections of prisoner-of-war status to spies, mercenaries and guerrillas who fail to distinguish themselves from civilians." Burkett notes similar executions of German Saboteurs during World War II's Battle of the Bulge, without trials. "Gen. Eisenhower was completely within his authority to order the executions. So was Gen. Loan." The difference was the treatment by the press and the fact that Loan performed the execution personally. When did you read press reports of VCdirected children dropping hand grenades near American GIs? Have you read any Tet press Reports noting that communist forces sent in kids high on opium as a first wave, carrying sticks, to be used as cannon fodder by drawing tracer fire and revealing American positions to the second wave, the ones with the AK-47s? These are merely the major omissions and distortions. There were others. ------------------------- I realize that I'm wasting my time trying to educate the clueless, but I try, nonetheless. That some "peace-loving moslem fundamentalists" have been "mistreated" is far better than they deserve. What they really deserve is shown in the attachment to this posting. Attachment: South Vietnamese National Police Chief Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan whacks Viet Cong Captain Bay Lop. All emphasis is mine. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #15 June 20, 2004 QuoteI realize that I'm wasting my time trying to educate the clueless, but I try, nonetheless. . You are not. Some people won't get it despite a doctorate or reading tons of books....."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #16 June 20, 2004 So we're not at war after all, since the "enemy" doesn't fit the definition. In that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #17 June 20, 2004 So does that post mean you are agreeing with markharju that many of the "abuses" were in fact minor, that they should not stop, and that executions may follow? Or are you simply avoiding the debate and attempting to draw attention to another topic where you feel more secure? ...again...witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #18 June 21, 2004 QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #19 June 21, 2004 Quote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Now you're going to get him talking about his model rockets again. Don't pretend you can do everything exactly as you could, with no restrictions like you could before. Friend of mine was detained and had film confiscated for taking pictures of a bridge and Independence Hall. New York's Transit Agency, the MTA, is seeking to make illegal any photography on it's busses and subways. My personal credit history is now subject to review by TSA and I can be denied boarding based on it. I can't drive down the public city street behind Independence Hall. These are just the ones that pop into my head. I'm sure there are plenty of new regulations and laws that you wouldn't even be aware of until you're in the back of a police car. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #20 June 21, 2004 Quote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #21 June 21, 2004 QuoteQuote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it. Something about not being able to play with toy planes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #22 June 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it. It's not really the ones which Kallend and I are being presently denied (although the right to read whatever you like without being on a government list is downright groovy) that are key, but the ones which the precedent has been set for us to be denied in the future. Like due process, sure, they're only denying it to those brown-skinned folk now, not to worry right? Wrong, due process is one of the core freedoms guaranteed to citizens of the US and it has been erroded by the ability of the President to declare someone an enemy combatant, hold them indefinitely without trial or access to legal representation. What's the next step? You and I disagree with the goverment, and big brother makes us effectively disappear. It's happened before, it can happen again, and say its ok to give up this right in the name of "security" is simply playing with fire. So what right am I most concerned with? Yep, due process. I'd die for my due process, without it, what good is my life anywaY? Something about not being able to play with toy planes? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #23 June 22, 2004 >The Geneva Conventions are very clear about combatants who aren't > wearing uniforms, or are wearing uniforms of their opposition. They are >NOT afforded the rights granted under the Conventions to LAWFUL >COMBATANTS, AND THEREFORE, THEY CAN BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED. IN >OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND. So a US civilian security contractor can legally be beheaded for a clear violation of the Geneva Convention? Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #24 June 23, 2004 Quote>The Geneva Conventions are very clear about combatants who aren't > wearing uniforms, or are wearing uniforms of their opposition. They are >NOT afforded the rights granted under the Conventions to LAWFUL >COMBATANTS, AND THEREFORE, THEY CAN BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED. IN >OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND. So a US civilian security contractor can legally be beheaded for a clear violation of the Geneva Convention? Interesting. If the contractor is a COMBATANT, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #25 June 23, 2004 >If the contractor is a COMBATANT, yes. Interesting. So a group of insurgents come upon a US security contractor driving a truck full of food for the military. He pulls a gun but they overpower him. He is then "tried" and beheaded in summary execution for violations of the Geneva Conventions. You really OK with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 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. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
juanesky 0 #15 June 20, 2004 QuoteI realize that I'm wasting my time trying to educate the clueless, but I try, nonetheless. . You are not. Some people won't get it despite a doctorate or reading tons of books....."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #16 June 20, 2004 So we're not at war after all, since the "enemy" doesn't fit the definition. In that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #17 June 20, 2004 So does that post mean you are agreeing with markharju that many of the "abuses" were in fact minor, that they should not stop, and that executions may follow? Or are you simply avoiding the debate and attempting to draw attention to another topic where you feel more secure? ...again...witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 June 21, 2004 QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 June 21, 2004 Quote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Now you're going to get him talking about his model rockets again. Don't pretend you can do everything exactly as you could, with no restrictions like you could before. Friend of mine was detained and had film confiscated for taking pictures of a bridge and Independence Hall. New York's Transit Agency, the MTA, is seeking to make illegal any photography on it's busses and subways. My personal credit history is now subject to review by TSA and I can be denied boarding based on it. I can't drive down the public city street behind Independence Hall. These are just the ones that pop into my head. I'm sure there are plenty of new regulations and laws that you wouldn't even be aware of until you're in the back of a police car. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #20 June 21, 2004 Quote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #21 June 21, 2004 QuoteQuote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it. Something about not being able to play with toy planes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #22 June 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote QuoteIn that case, can we have our civil liberties back, please? Sure, just tell us which civil rights you are being denied. Same ones as last time you asked the question and I answered it. It's not really the ones which Kallend and I are being presently denied (although the right to read whatever you like without being on a government list is downright groovy) that are key, but the ones which the precedent has been set for us to be denied in the future. Like due process, sure, they're only denying it to those brown-skinned folk now, not to worry right? Wrong, due process is one of the core freedoms guaranteed to citizens of the US and it has been erroded by the ability of the President to declare someone an enemy combatant, hold them indefinitely without trial or access to legal representation. What's the next step? You and I disagree with the goverment, and big brother makes us effectively disappear. It's happened before, it can happen again, and say its ok to give up this right in the name of "security" is simply playing with fire. So what right am I most concerned with? Yep, due process. I'd die for my due process, without it, what good is my life anywaY? Something about not being able to play with toy planes? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #23 June 22, 2004 >The Geneva Conventions are very clear about combatants who aren't > wearing uniforms, or are wearing uniforms of their opposition. They are >NOT afforded the rights granted under the Conventions to LAWFUL >COMBATANTS, AND THEREFORE, THEY CAN BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED. IN >OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND. So a US civilian security contractor can legally be beheaded for a clear violation of the Geneva Convention? Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 June 23, 2004 Quote>The Geneva Conventions are very clear about combatants who aren't > wearing uniforms, or are wearing uniforms of their opposition. They are >NOT afforded the rights granted under the Conventions to LAWFUL >COMBATANTS, AND THEREFORE, THEY CAN BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED. IN >OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHTS OF ANY KIND. So a US civilian security contractor can legally be beheaded for a clear violation of the Geneva Convention? Interesting. If the contractor is a COMBATANT, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #25 June 23, 2004 >If the contractor is a COMBATANT, yes. Interesting. So a group of insurgents come upon a US security contractor driving a truck full of food for the military. He pulls a gun but they overpower him. He is then "tried" and beheaded in summary execution for violations of the Geneva Conventions. You really OK with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)