And the System just keeps on working!
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, August 3, 2006 21:59
VIEWED: 7375
PAGE 5 of 10
Here is a quotation from the Geneva Convention of 1949
"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...
2. Memembers of other militas and members of other volonteed corps... provided such militias or volonteer corps including organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
a. that of being commanded by a person responable for the actions of his subordinates [must be commanded by an officer corps]
b. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recongnizable at a distance [must wear some type of easisly recognized uniform]
c. that of carrying arms openly [must not hide ones weapons]
d. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war [self-explanatory]"
As can be deduced by anyone who has paid attention to Opposition tactics during the conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan, combatants captured, with the exception of Iraqi and Afgani army soldiers captured during the inital invasion, do not meet the conditions for lawful combatancy and protection as prisoners of war.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So following Geezer's logic: The Supreme Court has ruled. The law is settled. Case closed. Dead issue. The system worked.
Why are you bringing this up?
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Until this latest Supreme Court decision, my concern is that the system might stop working because it was being dismantled. There's alot of examples. Directly related to this thread,the letter Alberto Gonzalez wrote changing the way we handled prisoners. Or, the shpiel about a nuclear option eliminating the filibuster beacuse "obstructionist Democrats" were blocking judical appointments.
Anyway, I don't often agree with you but I like the way you've handled your side of this discussion. And if the system really works there will be a swing the other way. Ideally we'll end up somewhere in the middle without the armed rebellion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Veteran- just because the system works once in a while doesn't mean it "works". How does the saying go? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The system is being beta-tested by Bush. The fact that SO MANY checks and balances have been subverted tells me that something is seriously wrong... a properly engineered system should never get this distorted.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stiilflyin- I'm going to give you the discussion that (according to Geezer) your post doesn't deserve since the issue is settled. According to the STATE DEPARTMENT usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Oct/09-932878.html IRAQ is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Did you know that? That means we are legally- not just morally- bound by the GC when dealing with Iraq. Also there is more than one Geneva Convention. The one you quote (POWs) is a very limited portion.
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Annex I (to the Protocol I) : Regulations concerning identification (as amended on 30 November 1993)
Regulations concerning identification (as of 6 June 1977)
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III), 8 December 2005
Somewhere in there, the GC may talk about what happens to civilians who are rounded up and shipped off.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, you missed an important point:
Sigh. And if enough people are convinced that it's a "dead" issue then nothing happens.- Signy
Hey! You figured it out! -Geezer
So why are you trying to convince people that everything is a dead issue? Follow the logic backwards.-Signy
I'm really amazed at the energy you apply to misunderstanding what I'm saying. You keep finding and quoting the one little out-of-context statement in each long post which will give you an opportunity to act like you have no idea what I'm really getting at. So rather than typing the same thing over again, I'll just quote some of the stuff you ignored before, (with maybe a little emphasis on what I consider the important bits).
Quote:
"Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again... Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.
----------
If the people can convince someone to take that action (impeaching the president), that's fine. That's the way it works, and I think it's a pretty good idea.
----------
Sure it matters, if the people act through their elected representatives. If enough of them act to get change moving. If the idea takes hold. If they vote the rascals out. If they give their congressperson the word that they'll be looking for a lobbying job after the next election of they don't toe the line.
How many ways do I have to say it? The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen.
If you can do this and get Bush impeached, or convicted, or whatever, more power to you. The system worked. If you and those who think like you can't convince enough people to convince their reps to do it, then you fought the good fight and lost, and the system worked.
----------
I'm trying to say that in the real world of the American system it doesn't matter a damn what you as an individual think. It matters what you and enough other people who'll bug their congresspeople to do something think. Majority rules, unless it's unconstitutional. This applies even if the majority decide to sit on their butts and do nothing.
I don't doubt that you passionately believe you are right. You may be right. But if enough other people don't agree with you to move the legislative process forward, you're not going to accomplish anything for a while. Maybe later they'll come around to your point of view. It's happened before. How long did it take for women to get the vote? You don't have to give up, but you must realize that the system takes time. Wishing doesn't make it so. You have to sell your ideas. Think long-term. Maybe Bush is good for your eventual goals, as others have noted above.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay, but only as long as there are those ready to glue big giant neon signs to the butts of the shmoes that think they are above the law.
Originally posted by Geezer:
You just have to have faith that, in the long run, the people will eventually get it right.
Checks and balances are not just for use by the government, but for the (hopefully) enlightened public as well. Properly played, it should all come out in the wash, but there will always be a percentage of creeps that make out off the system, and cover their tracks all too well.
I guess what you're saying is that any other system lets that percentage get obscene.
The battle goes on Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, but only as long as there are those ready to glue big giant neon signs to the butts of the shmoes that think they are above the law.
Checks and balances are not just for use by the government, but for the (hopefully) enlightened public as well. Properly played, it should all come out in the wash, but there will always be a percentage of creeps that make out off the system, and cover their tracks all too well.
I guess what you're saying is that any other system lets that percentage get obscene.
The battle goes on Chrisisall
I got no problem with ths sign posters. I've put up a few in my time. But unlike some SignyMs...err...people here, I understand that if my sign doesn't do the job, it doesn't mean that the system doesn't work. It means my sign was the wrong color, or didn't convey the message properly, or it was the wrong time, or that maybe I should put up my signs where they'll do more good, or...
And, yeah, some bad apples, bad laws, and bad policies will slip through the system. The only way you'll have perfect government is with perfect people, and aside from SignyM and Rue
I don't know that many. I think that, on balance, we do pretty well. "Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey! Signy and Rue are the ones with the GLUE!!
Originally posted by Geezer:
The only way you'll have perfect government is with perfect people, and aside from SignyM and Rue
It's just that stuff like Kent State, Waco, and Abu-Gharib (to name a tiny few) make it seem like balance can be so easily lost...
Just sayin' Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't believe I have to explain this. Geezer understands me, why don't you?
Wow, you managed to put down two posters with a single sentence, I wish I could say well done. I apologize for asking you for clarification on one of the points in your post. Perhaps I am not as smart as Geezer, perhaps we had different schooling. Perhaps coming from different environments has given us both differing viewpoints when looking at the same subject. Maybe Geezer was breast fed and I wasn't. Point is, just because someone understands you that doesn't mean everyone will.
Quote:
Geezer implies that as long as an issue is not in courts it's a "dead issue". Slavery was the same: It was settled law and a "dead issue"... except that popular opinion was seething both ways. At a time when the courts had settled the issue and the legislatures were not taking it up, it was a very lively popular contention. Not "dead" at all... just invisible to someone who only looks to "the system" for validation.
Thank you for the explanation, that wasn't too onerous now was it? I was focusing on how gathering enough evidence to try and convict the Bush administration of voter fraud compared to the abolishment of slavery. You were speaking in much more general terms.
Quote:
Get it?
I do now, though a much less condescending tone to your post would have been appreciated.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME