http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ilitary-leaks?

The war criminals Bush /Bliar need to be arrested............

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ilitary-leaks?

The war criminals Bush /Bliar need to be arrested............

So harry, you've already read 400000 leaked military documents and
made this determination? I don't think so.

On 10/23/2010 12:31 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ilitary-leaks?

The war criminals Bush /Bliar need to be arrested............

So harry, you've already read 400000 leaked military documents and
made this determination? I don't think so.

Of course he hasn't. I actually downloaded the earlier release (the
first "Afghan War Diary") and have skimmed it, but certainly not
digested it in its entirety. Have you seen this stuff? It's a humungous
amount of information. Pretty impressive.

There's too much stuff there for most people to make sense of it.

But fortunately there are other folks who make it their business to read
such things. They're called "journalists", and I do trust *some* of
them. And I trust Daniel Ellesberg, the prototypical leaker, who has
recently commented favorably on the new Wikileaks release.

I hope to take the time at some point to read through some of this stuff
later. In the meantime, I agree completely with harry. (Heh; I
especially like your misspelling of your former leader's name ...)


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Oct 23, 4:00*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/23/2010 12:31 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...gs-military-le....

The war criminals Bush /Bliar need to be arrested............

So harry, you've already read *400000 leaked military documents and
made this determination? *I don't think so.

Of course he hasn't. I actually downloaded the earlier release (the
first "Afghan War Diary") and have skimmed it, but certainly not
digested it in its entirety. Have you seen this stuff? It's a humungous
amount of information. Pretty impressive.

There's too much stuff there for most people to make sense of it.

But fortunately there are other folks who make it their business to read
such things. They're called "journalists", and I do trust *some* of
them. And I trust Daniel Ellesberg, the prototypical leaker, who has
recently commented favorably on the new Wikileaks release.

I hope to take the time at some point to read through some of this stuff
later. In the meantime, I agree completely with harry. (Heh; I
especially like your misspelling of your former leader's name ...)

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

yeah bush is just under hitler for causing unnecessary war deaths.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 23, 4:00*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/23/2010 12:31 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...gs-military-le...

The war criminals Bush /Bliar need to be arrested............

So harry, you've already read *400000 leaked military documents and
made this determination? *I don't think so.

Of course he hasn't. I actually downloaded the earlier release (the
first "Afghan War Diary") and have skimmed it, but certainly not
digested it in its entirety. Have you seen this stuff? It's a humungous
amount of information. Pretty impressive.

There's too much stuff there for most people to make sense of it.

But fortunately there are other folks who make it their business to read
such things. They're called "journalists", and I do trust *some* of
them. And I trust Daniel Ellesberg, the prototypical leaker, who has
recently commented favorably on the new Wikileaks release.

I hope to take the time at some point to read through some of this stuff
later. In the meantime, I agree completely with harry. (Heh; I
especially like your misspelling of your former leader's name ...)

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

yeah bush is just under hitler for causing unnecessary war deaths.

Bob,

When you, harry and David read all these documents and find evidence
to establish an indictment of Dubya and Tony please post and let me
know.

In the UK, Tony, if arrested is guilty until he can prove his
innocence -- that is how their system works. Here, Dubya, if arrested
is presumed innocent until proven guilty -- that is how our system
works.

People die in wars. Always been that way, except those here that burnt
their draft cards and ran off to Canada.

People died so you can have free speech. Except harry -- the subjects
in the UK have no such right.

On 10/23/2010 3:23 PM Oren spake thus:

In the UK, Tony, if arrested is guilty until he can prove his
innocence -- that is how their system works. Here, Dubya, if arrested
is presumed innocent until proven guilty -- that is how our system
works.

Absolutely. (I'm agreeing with you, not being snarky.) Innocent until
proven guilty.

I certainly wouldn't want Bliar or Dubya to have any fewer rights or be
treated any worse than, say, all those "detainees" in Guantanamo.

oh, wait ...


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:


Absolutely. (I'm agreeing with you, not being snarky.) Innocent until
proven guilty.

I certainly wouldn't want Bliar or Dubya to have any fewer rights or be
treated any worse than, say, all those "detainees" in Guantanamo.

oh, wait ...
Why wait. As citizen of the US and/or the UK, they are entitled to
certain rights. The detainees are not citizens of either and weren't
even IN the two countries for the most part. Whole different ballgame.
BTW: The last time somebody was beheaded in Gitmo was when?

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:33:07 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 10/23/2010 3:23 PM Oren spake thus:

In the UK, Tony, if arrested is guilty until he can prove his
innocence -- that is how their system works. Here, Dubya, if arrested
is presumed innocent until proven guilty -- that is how our system
works.

Absolutely. (I'm agreeing with you, not being snarky.) Innocent until
proven guilty.

I certainly wouldn't want Bliar or Dubya to have any fewer rights or be
treated any worse than, say, all those "detainees" in Guantanamo.


By detainee, do you mean those that may be held as a material witness
or those that refused to wear a proper uniform and fight as grown men?

GITMO is a fine run facility.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/23/2010 3:23 PM Oren spake thus:

In the UK, Tony, if arrested is guilty until he can prove his
innocence -- that is how their system works. Here, Dubya, if
arrested is presumed innocent until proven guilty -- that is how our
system works.

Absolutely. (I'm agreeing with you, not being snarky.) Innocent until
proven guilty.

I certainly wouldn't want Bliar or Dubya to have any fewer rights or
be treated any worse than, say, all those "detainees" in Guantanamo.

oh, wait ...

Big difference. The detainees are Gitmo do not fall under the protections of
the criminal law simply because they are not criminals; they have not been
charged with a crime, nor will they be charged with a crime. They are
completely outside the criminal law system. They are not entitled to a
lawyer, indictment by a grand jury, remain silent, and so forth.

They are being detained under the president's Article II powers and, as
unlawful enemy combatants, fall into the same category as spies, saboteurs,
guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. The usual rules of war permit
them to be executed forthwith.

Our first unlawful enemy combatant was Major John Andre. George Washington
had him hanged. Had Washington been able to get his hands on Andre's boss,
Benedict Arnold, Washington would have hanged him too.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


They are being detained under the president's Article II powers and, as
unlawful enemy combatants, fall into the same category as spies, saboteurs,
guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. The usual rules of war permit
them to be executed forthwith.

This is one of the reasons why I get rather strange and vacant looks
from most people saying they should be treated under the terms of the
Geneva Convention when I agree wholeheartedly with them.
It has been awhile so I may be wrong, but IIRC there is a part in
the GC that says it only applies to signatories and since most of the
insurgents, Taliban, AQ-ites, etc., are not signatories...
I also like to point out beheadings and other interesting ideas
about "interrogation" in that region and suggest the guys in Gitmo are
getting off much easier than they would if their governments got hold of
them.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On 10/23/2010 5:03 PM Kurt Ullman spake thus:

I also like to point out beheadings and other interesting ideas
about "interrogation" in that region and suggest the guys in Gitmo are
getting off much easier than they would if their governments got hold of
them.

Which is why the CIA has this little policy called "extraordinary
rendition".


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


They are being detained under the president's Article II powers and,
as unlawful enemy combatants, fall into the same category as spies,
saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. The usual
rules of war permit them to be executed forthwith.

This is one of the reasons why I get rather strange and vacant
looks from most people saying they should be treated under the terms
of the Geneva Convention when I agree wholeheartedly with them.
It has been awhile so I may be wrong, but IIRC there is a part in
the GC that says it only applies to signatories and since most of the
insurgents, Taliban, AQ-ites, etc., are not signatories...
I also like to point out beheadings and other interesting ideas
about "interrogation" in that region and suggest the guys in Gitmo are
getting off much easier than they would if their governments got hold
of them.

No problem there. The Geneva and Hague conventions do not apply to "unlawful
enemy combatants."

The Fourth Geneva Convention defines a "lawful" enemy combatant as one who:

1. Wears a distinctive uniform or insignia,
2. Carries arms openly,
3. Submits to a lawful chain-of-command, and
4. Follows the generally accept rules of war.

Absent all four of these conditions, a belligerent is NOT a lawful enemy
combatant.

The protocols go on to define exceptions, such as a hastily organized
militia deployed to engage an invasion, medical personnel, civilian workers
such as those constructing fortifications, truck drivers of military
supplies, and others. None of these excepts apply to "insurgents."

So, then, even IF the Taliban were signatories to the protocols and
conventions, the folks we've captured would STILL be outside the protections
of international agreements.

On 10/23/2010 10:13 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:


They are being detained under the president's Article II powers and,
as unlawful enemy combatants, fall into the same category as spies,
saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. The usual
rules of war permit them to be executed forthwith.

This is one of the reasons why I get rather strange and vacant
looks from most people saying they should be treated under the terms
of the Geneva Convention when I agree wholeheartedly with them.
It has been awhile so I may be wrong, but IIRC there is a part in
the GC that says it only applies to signatories and since most of the
insurgents, Taliban, AQ-ites, etc., are not signatories...
I also like to point out beheadings and other interesting ideas
about "interrogation" in that region and suggest the guys in Gitmo are
getting off much easier than they would if their governments got hold
of them.

No problem there. The Geneva and Hague conventions do not apply to "unlawful
enemy combatants."

The Fourth Geneva Convention defines a "lawful" enemy combatant as one who:

1. Wears a distinctive uniform or insignia,
2. Carries arms openly,
3. Submits to a lawful chain-of-command, and
4. Follows the generally accept rules of war.

Absent all four of these conditions, a belligerent is NOT a lawful enemy
combatant.

The protocols go on to define exceptions, such as a hastily organized
militia deployed to engage an invasion, medical personnel, civilian workers
such as those constructing fortifications, truck drivers of military
supplies, and others. None of these excepts apply to "insurgents."

So, then, even IF the Taliban were signatories to the protocols and
conventions, the folks we've captured would STILL be outside the protections
of international agreements.



True but irrelevant. This country used to hold itself to a higher
standard than merely following the letter of the law, and strove to
treat prisoners of whatever status well. And the world knew it. At the
close of WWII, why do you think all those Nazis were trying like hell to
flee west? They knew how the Russians treated prisoners. A lot of the
German POWs held in midwest STAYED after the war.

It saddens me that our government now thinks the ends justify the means.

--
aem sends...

In .com,
David Nebenzahl spewed forth:
On 10/23/2010 3:23 PM Oren spake thus:

In the UK, Tony, if arrested is guilty until he can prove his
innocence -- that is how their system works. Here, Dubya, if
arrested is presumed innocent until proven guilty -- that is how our
system works.

Absolutely. (I'm agreeing with you, not being snarky.) Innocent until
proven guilty.

I certainly wouldn't want Bliar or Dubya to have any fewer rights or
be treated any worse than, say, all those "detainees" in Guantanamo.

oh, wait ...

and don't forget, Obama has not changed one thing at gitmo nor has he closed
it as he promised.
Do you hold him to the same standard?

On 10/23/2010 11:43 PM ChairMan spake thus:

In .com, David
Nebenzahl spewed forth:

On 10/23/2010 3:23 PM Oren spake thus:

In the UK, Tony, if arrested is guilty until he can prove his
innocence -- that is how their system works. Here, Dubya, if
arrested is presumed innocent until proven guilty -- that is how
our system works.

Absolutely. (I'm agreeing with you, not being snarky.) Innocent
until proven guilty.

I certainly wouldn't want Bliar or Dubya to have any fewer rights
or be treated any worse than, say, all those "detainees" in
Guantanamo.

oh, wait ...

and don't forget, Obama has not changed one thing at gitmo nor has he
closed it as he promised.
Do you hold him to the same standard?

Yes, absolutely.

Guantanamo is now his prison. Afghanistan/Pakistan is his war.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Oct 23, 8:31*pm, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...gs-military-le...

The war criminals Bush /Bliar need to be arrested............

So harry, you've already read *400000 leaked military documents and
made this determination? *I don't think so.

Read a few summaries.

On Oct 23, 9:00*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/23/2010 12:31 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...gs-military-le....

The war criminals Bush /Bliar need to be arrested............

So harry, you've already read *400000 leaked military documents and
made this determination? *I don't think so.

Of course he hasn't. I actually downloaded the earlier release (the
first "Afghan War Diary") and have skimmed it, but certainly not
digested it in its entirety. Have you seen this stuff? It's a humungous
amount of information. Pretty impressive.

There's too much stuff there for most people to make sense of it.

But fortunately there are other folks who make it their business to read
such things. They're called "journalists", and I do trust *some* of
them. And I trust Daniel Ellesberg, the prototypical leaker, who has
recently commented favorably on the new Wikileaks release.

I hope to take the time at some point to read through some of this stuff
later. In the meantime, I agree completely with harry. (Heh; I
especially like your misspelling of your former leader's name ...)

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

Bliar is what he's generally known as over here. He spends most od
his time with you lot making speeches and has become rich with it.

On Oct 23, 11:23*pm, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Oct 23, 4:00*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/23/2010 12:31 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...gs-military-le...

The war criminals Bush /Bliar need to be arrested............

So harry, you've already read *400000 leaked military documents and
made this determination? *I don't think so.

Of course he hasn't. I actually downloaded the earlier release (the
first "Afghan War Diary") and have skimmed it, but certainly not
digested it in its entirety. Have you seen this stuff? It's a humungous
amount of information. Pretty impressive.

There's too much stuff there for most people to make sense of it.

But fortunately there are other folks who make it their business to read
such things. They're called "journalists", and I do trust *some* of
them. And I trust Daniel Ellesberg, the prototypical leaker, who has
recently commented favorably on the new Wikileaks release.

I hope to take the time at some point to read through some of this stuff
later. In the meantime, I agree completely with harry. (Heh; I
especially like your misspelling of your former leader's name ...)

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

yeah bush is just under hitler for causing unnecessary war deaths.

Bob,

When you, harry and David read all these documents and find evidence
to establish an indictment of Dubya and Tony please post and let me
know.

In the UK, Tony, if arrested is guilty until he can prove his
innocence -- that is how their system works. *Here, Dubya, if arrested
is presumed innocent until proven guilty -- that is how our system
works.

People die in wars. Always been that way, except those here that burnt
their draft cards and ran off to Canada.

People died so you can have free speech. Except harry -- the subjects
in the UK have no such right.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your justice system is a copy of ours. You bill of rights is largely
copied fro the Magna Carta. Didn't you know this?

On Oct 24, 1:03*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:

They are being detained under the president's Article II powers and, as
unlawful enemy combatants, fall into the same category as spies, saboteurs,
guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. The usual rules of war permit
them to be executed forthwith.

* * This is one of the reasons why I get rather strange and vacant looks
from most people saying they should be treated under the terms of the
Geneva Convention when I agree wholeheartedly with them.
* * *It has been awhile so I may be wrong, but IIRC there is a part in
the GC that says it only applies to signatories and since most of the
insurgents, Taliban, AQ-ites, etc., are not signatories...
* * I also like to point out beheadings and other interesting ideas
about "interrogation" in that region and suggest the guys in Gitmo are
getting off much easier than they would if their governments got hold of
them.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

But the USA has signed up. And therefor must act to prevent these
goings on as the occupying power. When you invaded Iraq you took on
resonsibilities.

aemeijers wrote:
On 10/23/2010 10:13 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:


They are being detained under the president's Article II powers
and, as unlawful enemy combatants, fall into the same category as
spies, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. The
usual rules of war permit them to be executed forthwith.

This is one of the reasons why I get rather strange and vacant
looks from most people saying they should be treated under the terms
of the Geneva Convention when I agree wholeheartedly with them.
It has been awhile so I may be wrong, but IIRC there is a part
in the GC that says it only applies to signatories and since most
of the insurgents, Taliban, AQ-ites, etc., are not signatories...
I also like to point out beheadings and other interesting ideas
about "interrogation" in that region and suggest the guys in Gitmo
are getting off much easier than they would if their governments
got hold of them.

No problem there. The Geneva and Hague conventions do not apply to
"unlawful enemy combatants."

The Fourth Geneva Convention defines a "lawful" enemy combatant as
one who: 1. Wears a distinctive uniform or insignia,
2. Carries arms openly,
3. Submits to a lawful chain-of-command, and
4. Follows the generally accept rules of war.

Absent all four of these conditions, a belligerent is NOT a lawful
enemy combatant.

The protocols go on to define exceptions, such as a hastily organized
militia deployed to engage an invasion, medical personnel, civilian
workers such as those constructing fortifications, truck drivers of
military supplies, and others. None of these excepts apply to
"insurgents." So, then, even IF the Taliban were signatories to the
protocols and
conventions, the folks we've captured would STILL be outside the
protections of international agreements.



True but irrelevant. This country used to hold itself to a higher
standard than merely following the letter of the law, and strove to
treat prisoners of whatever status well. And the world knew it. At the
close of WWII, why do you think all those Nazis were trying like hell
to flee west? They knew how the Russians treated prisoners. A lot of
the German POWs held in midwest STAYED after the war.

Uh, it wasn't that we treated them so well, it was the Russians treated them
so badly.

No German POWs remained on U.S. soil at the cessation of hostilities. In
Britain, however, many were kept until 1948 to help with reconstruction.

You are correct in that there were many POW camps in the U.S. All together,
these camps housed over 400,000 POWs, many with U.S. citizenship.

Not a single one EVER gained access to our civil courts. For any reason, at
any time.


It saddens me that our government now thinks the ends justify the
means.

I think you'll find that liberals tend to hold to that position while
conservatives are more interested in the "process," that is, "no good can
come from an immoral act."

The attitude of the two groups toward voting is an example. Almost all the
funny business comes from the Democratic ranks in the belief that getting
their candidate into office achieves a greater good than being a stickler
for the rules.

There's room for both techniques. For example, women are more concerned,
generally, with results than methods so I'd suggest that Hillary Clinton and
the leading female from both the Palestinians and the Israelis sit down and
get their business straight. They could probably finish the project in an
evening. Especially if there was knitting involved.

But no, the entire world has to focus on the "Peace PROCESS." And they've
been focused on the "process" for more than two decades.

Bah!

harry wrote:

Your justice system is a copy of ours. You bill of rights is largely
copied fro the Magna Carta. Didn't you know this?

Well, yes, the American system IS based on the English Common Law. But the
two systems have diverged, according to local use.

For example, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 consisted of 13 particulars.
Of these, six put limits on the King, one allowed for the keeping and
bearing of arms (since repealed in practice), speeches in Parliament should
not be impeded (nothing about speech by citizens), and that Parliament
should meet frequently.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:
s
True but irrelevant. This country used to hold itself to a higher
standard than merely following the letter of the law, and strove to
treat prisoners of whatever status well. And the world knew it. At the
close of WWII, why do you think all those Nazis were trying like hell
to flee west? They knew how the Russians treated prisoners. A lot of
the German POWs held in midwest STAYED after the war.

Uh, it wasn't that we treated them so well, it was the Russians treated them
so badly.

No German POWs remained on U.S. soil at the cessation of hostilities. In
Britain, however, many were kept until 1948 to help with reconstruction.

You are correct in that there were many POW camps in the U.S. All together,
these camps housed over 400,000 POWs, many with U.S. citizenship.

Which is why I was wondering about how this "holding ourselves to a
higher standard" came about. Actually some of the worst POW-related
incidents in our recorded history, albeit before the GCs came about,
occurred during the Civil War. Andersonville for instance springs to
mind. Also, keeping in mind the "standards of warfare" at the time, our
Revolutionary soldiers were roundly criticized for fighting from behind
trees and other "unfair" tactics.



Not a single one EVER gained access to our civil courts. For any reason, at
any time.


It saddens me that our government now thinks the ends justify the
means.

I think you'll find that liberals tend to hold to that position while
conservatives are more interested in the "process," that is, "no good can
come from an immoral act."

The attitude of the two groups toward voting is an example. Almost all the
funny business comes from the Democratic ranks in the belief that getting
their candidate into office achieves a greater good than being a stickler
for the rules.

There's room for both techniques. For example, women are more concerned,
generally, with results than methods so I'd suggest that Hillary Clinton and
the leading female from both the Palestinians and the Israelis sit down and
get their business straight. They could probably finish the project in an
evening. Especially if there was knitting involved.

But no, the entire world has to focus on the "Peace PROCESS." And they've
been focused on the "process" for more than two decades.

Bah!

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

" wrote:

yeah bush is just under hitler for causing unnecessary war deaths.

Nonsense. Bush is not even in the top ten. Although you can debate
"unnecessary", let's call all the civilian deaths in Iraq as "unnecessary" and
say, pessimistically there were 100,000. The estimates range from 33,000 to
638,000.

Viet Nam had roughly 600,000 civilian deaths on both sides. Rwanda had
1,000,000 civilian deaths. There were 3,000,000 civilian deaths in China for
WWII, 2,500,000 for the USSR. Pol Pot killed off 1,500,000 in Cambodia.
Roosevelt was responsible for 300,000 civilian deaths in Japan. There were
200,000 civilian deaths in the Philippines rebellion 1898 to 1902 (McKinney and
the first Roosevelt).

-- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
" wrote:

yeah bush is just under hitler for causing unnecessary war deaths.

Nonsense. Bush is not even in the top ten. Although you can debate
"unnecessary", let's call all the civilian deaths in Iraq as
"unnecessary" and say, pessimistically there were 100,000. The
estimates range from 33,000 to 638,000.

Viet Nam had roughly 600,000 civilian deaths on both sides. Rwanda
had 1,000,000 civilian deaths. There were 3,000,000 civilian deaths
in China for WWII, 2,500,000 for the USSR. Pol Pot killed off
1,500,000 in Cambodia. Roosevelt was responsible for 300,000 civilian
deaths in Japan. There were 200,000 civilian deaths in the
Philippines rebellion 1898 to 1902 (McKinney and the first Roosevelt).


"Civilian" is not the same as "non-combatant." Civilians working in war
industries are just as much a legitimate target as soldiers in the trench.

Usually, though, killing "civilians" is a terror tactic, not a strategic
one. In spite of the bombing and so forth, German armaments production rose
continually throughout the war, even until March 1945.

On 10/24/2010 12:37 PM HeyBub spake thus:

"Civilian" is not the same as "non-combatant." Civilians working in war
industries are just as much a legitimate target as soldiers in the trench.

God damn, "Bub", where do you get this stuff?

Oh, yeah, that's right: to quote yourself, "I generally find it easier
to just make this **** up".

With this in mind, I think we can all give your bloviations the due
consideration they deserve.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/24/2010 12:37 PM HeyBub spake thus:

"Civilian" is not the same as "non-combatant." Civilians working in war
industries are just as much a legitimate target as soldiers in the trench.

God damn, "Bub", where do you get this stuff?

Oh, yeah, that's right: to quote yourself, "I generally find it easier
to just make this **** up".

With this in mind, I think we can all give your bloviations the due
consideration they deserve.

Actually in this case he is correct. (Even a stopped bloviate is
right twice a day-grin). Defense industries such as airplane factories
(remember in WWII how pretty much every heavy bombing mission was on a
ball bearing factory if you watched 12 O'clock High), are legitimate
targets even though staffed by civilians.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:49:28 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/24/2010 12:37 PM HeyBub spake thus:

"Civilian" is not the same as "non-combatant." Civilians working in war
industries are just as much a legitimate target as soldiers in the trench.

God damn, "Bub", where do you get this stuff?

Oh, yeah, that's right: to quote yourself, "I generally find it easier
to just make this **** up".

With this in mind, I think we can all give your bloviations the due
consideration they deserve.

Actually in this case he is correct. (Even a stopped bloviate is
right twice a day-grin). Defense industries such as airplane factories
(remember in WWII how pretty much every heavy bombing mission was on a
ball bearing factory if you watched 12 O'clock High), are legitimate
targets even though staffed by civilians.

I was stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany 1971. A utility company making
repairs underground dug up a 500 pound bomb under the street that
never detonated.

Ball bearings were made in factories there for tanks and airplanes

pic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinfurt#World_War_II

Kurt Ullman wrote:

It has been awhile so I may be wrong, but IIRC there is a part in
the GC that says it only applies to signatories and since most of the
insurgents, Taliban, AQ-ites, etc., are not signatories...

You're right that, for the most part, it only apples to nationals of
signatories. But both Afghanistan and Iraq are signatories, along with 192
other nations. I'll bet almost all Gitmo residents are nationals of one of
those countries.

Being a member of Taliban, etc is no more relevant to protected status than
being Republican.

-- Doug

"HeyBub" wrote:

No problem there. The Geneva and Hague conventions do not apply to "unlawful
enemy combatants."

Nonsense. How often do we have to go over this? The Fourth Geneva Convention
applies to "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find
themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the
conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals".

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004aa3c5

It goes on to say:
"Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons
may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely
necessary.

[...]

Art. 43. Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned
residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible
by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining
Power for that purpose. If the internment or placing in assigned residence is
maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least
twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the
favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit."

To the best of my knowledge, no such boards have reviewed the Gitmo cases at
all, much less twice yearly. There have been several attempts to do that, all
shot down by the USSC.

The Fourth Geneva Convention defines a "lawful" enemy combatant as one who:

Actually, it is the Third Geneva Convention that defines who is required to be
provided prisoner of war status. None of them talk about lawful or unlawful
combatants.

So, then, even IF the Taliban were signatories to the protocols and
conventions, the folks we've captured would STILL be outside the protections
of international agreements.

No. The Fourth applies to essentially all persons we've captured because they
are nationals of signatories, such as Afghanistan. Membership in the Italian is
irrelevant.

-- Doug

In article ,
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

It has been awhile so I may be wrong, but IIRC there is a part in
the GC that says it only applies to signatories and since most of the
insurgents, Taliban, AQ-ites, etc., are not signatories...

You're right that, for the most part, it only apples to nationals of
signatories. But both Afghanistan and Iraq are signatories, along with 192
other nations. I'll bet almost all Gitmo residents are nationals of one of
those countries.

Doesn't make any difference as to citizenship. The GC applies only to
the armed forces of a signatory country. If were to ship a couple
regular army types (in uniform and under orders from their commanders)
off to Cuba, then you might have a case.


Being a member of Taliban, etc is no more relevant to protected status than
being Republican.

That was pretty much the point I was trying (and missing I guess) to
make.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/24/2010 12:37 PM HeyBub spake thus:

"Civilian" is not the same as "non-combatant." Civilians working in
war industries are just as much a legitimate target as soldiers in
the trench.

God damn, "Bub", where do you get this stuff?

Oh, it just comes to me. Sometimes from a dim memory, sometimes in a flash
of inspiration.

I trust you're referring to my claim of increasing German war production.

Here's the German GDP (in $billions adjusted for 1990)

1938 - 351
1939 - 384
1940 - 397
1941 - 412
1942 - 417
1943 - 426
1944 - 437
1945 - 310

Admittedly there was something of a drop-off in 1945, but remember, Germany
surrendered in April 1945, so the full production year was really only four
or five months long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...g_World_War_II


Oh, yeah, that's right: to quote yourself, "I generally find it easier
to just make this **** up".

With this in mind, I think we can all give your bloviations the due
consideration they deserve.

Ah, if only you did the world would be a lovelier place...

One of these days you'll come to realize that if I say it, it's (mostly)
golden. You can take it to the bank. You can let your sister marry it. You
can build a religion around it.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Doesn't make any difference as to citizenship. The GC applies only to
the armed forces of a signatory country. If were to ship a couple
regular army types (in uniform and under orders from their commanders)
off to Cuba, then you might have a case.

This is a very persistent myth. The Fourth Geneva Convention
applies to "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find
themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the
conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals".

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004aa3c5

Not just armed forces. Any national of a signatory.

-- Doug

On 10/24/2010 4:49 PM Douglas Johnson spake thus:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Doesn't make any difference as to citizenship. The GC applies only
to the armed forces of a signatory country. If were to ship a
couple regular army types (in uniform and under orders from their
commanders) off to Cuba, then you might have a case.

This is a very persistent myth. The Fourth Geneva Convention
applies to "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find
themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the
conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals".

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004aa3c5

Not just armed forces. Any national of a signatory.

Thank you for your persistent attempts at correction here.

Too many believe that the term "unlawful combatant" has any real meaning
in the realm of international law. It's yet another concoction of that
other axis of evil--you know, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith,
etc.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Oct 24, 6:47*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
" wrote:
yeah bush is just under hitler for causing unnecessary war deaths.

Nonsense. *Bush is not even in the top ten. *Although you can debate
"unnecessary", let's call all the civilian deaths in Iraq as "unnecessary" and
say, pessimistically there were 100,000. *The estimates range *from 33,000 to
638,000. *

Viet Nam had roughly 600,000 civilian deaths on both sides. *Rwanda had
1,000,000 civilian deaths. *There were 3,000,000 civilian deaths in China for
WWII, 2,500,000 for the USSR. *Pol Pot killed off 1,500,000 in Cambodia..
Roosevelt was responsible for 300,000 civilian deaths in Japan. *There were
200,000 civilian deaths in the Philippines rebellion 1898 to 1902 (McKinney and
the first Roosevelt). *

-- Doug

So that makes it OK then? You were whinging at less than 3000 when it
was American civilian deaths in 11/9

On Oct 24, 11:30*pm, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:49:28 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:





In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/24/2010 12:37 PM HeyBub spake thus:

"Civilian" is not the same as "non-combatant." Civilians working in war
industries are just as much a legitimate target as soldiers in the trench.

God damn, "Bub", where do you get this stuff?

Oh, yeah, that's right: to quote yourself, "I generally find it easier
to just make this **** up".

With this in mind, I think we can all give your bloviations the due
consideration they deserve.

* Actually in this case he is correct. (Even a stopped bloviate is
right twice a day-grin). *Defense industries such as airplane factories
(remember in WWII how pretty much every heavy bombing mission was on a
ball bearing factory if you watched 12 O'clock High), are legitimate
targets even though staffed by civilians.

I was stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany 1971. A utility company making
repairs underground dug up a 500 pound bomb under the street that
never detonated.

Ball bearings were made in factories there for tanks and airplanes

pic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinfurt#World_War_II- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This sort of thing happenins in many of the UK cities even now.
There is a sunken American ship in the Thames with over 3000 tons of
explosives that no-one dares to go near.
http://www.submerged.co.uk/montgomery.php

On Oct 25, 3:42*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:30*pm, Oren wrote:





On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:49:28 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/24/2010 12:37 PM HeyBub spake thus:

"Civilian" is not the same as "non-combatant." Civilians working in war
industries are just as much a legitimate target as soldiers in the trench.

God damn, "Bub", where do you get this stuff?

Oh, yeah, that's right: to quote yourself, "I generally find it easier
to just make this **** up".

With this in mind, I think we can all give your bloviations the due
consideration they deserve.

* Actually in this case he is correct. (Even a stopped bloviate is
right twice a day-grin). *Defense industries such as airplane factories
(remember in WWII how pretty much every heavy bombing mission was on a
ball bearing factory if you watched 12 O'clock High), are legitimate
targets even though staffed by civilians.

I was stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany 1971. A utility company making
repairs underground dug up a 500 pound bomb under the street that
never detonated.

Ball bearings were made in factories there for tanks and airplanes

pic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwein...ld_War_II-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This sort of thing happenins in many of the UK cities even now.
There is a sunken American ship in the Thames with over 3000 tons of
explosives that no-one dares to go near.http://www.submerged.co.uk/montgomery.php

TROLL GO POST THIS KIND OF CRAP SOMEWHERE ELSE
THIS IS A HOME REPAIR GROUP
NOT A WARMONGERING OFF TOPIC ASSHOLES GROUP

I AM PROTEUS

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

No problem there. The Geneva and Hague conventions do not apply to
"unlawful enemy combatants."

Nonsense. How often do we have to go over this? The Fourth Geneva
Convention applies to "those who, at a given moment and in any manner
whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in
the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they
are not nationals".

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004aa3c5


We'll go over it until it is clear:

You quote Article IV of the 4th Geneva Convention. Had you not quit reading
at that point, you would have encountered Article V.

"Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied
that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person
shall NOT be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present
Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person,
be prejudicial to the security of such State..."

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/24/2010 4:49 PM Douglas Johnson spake thus:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Doesn't make any difference as to citizenship. The GC applies only
to the armed forces of a signatory country. If were to ship a
couple regular army types (in uniform and under orders from their
commanders) off to Cuba, then you might have a case.

This is a very persistent myth. The Fourth Geneva Convention
applies to "those who, at a given moment and in any manner
whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in
the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which
they are not nationals".
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004aa3c5

Not just armed forces. Any national of a signatory.

Thank you for your persistent attempts at correction here.

Too many believe that the term "unlawful combatant" has any real
meaning in the realm of international law. It's yet another
concoction of that other axis of evil--you know, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc.

The term "Lawful enemy combatant" is defined in the Geneva Convention.
Presumably those belligerents who do not meet the definition are "unlawful"
enemy combatants.

Nevertheless, the term "UNlawful combatant" was coined by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Ex Parte Quirin:

"By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction
between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations
and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful
combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by
opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to
capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and
punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency
unlawful."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=317&invol=1

On Oct 24, 12:11*am, aemeijers wrote:
On 10/23/2010 10:13 PM, HeyBub wrote:





Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
*wrote:

They are being detained under the president's Article II powers and,
as unlawful enemy combatants, fall into the same category as spies,
saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. The usual
rules of war permit them to be executed forthwith.

* * This is one of the reasons why I get rather strange and vacant
looks from most people saying they should be treated under the terms
of the Geneva Convention when I agree wholeheartedly with them.
* * *It has been awhile so I may be wrong, but IIRC there is a part in
the GC that says it only applies to signatories and since most of the
insurgents, Taliban, AQ-ites, etc., are not signatories...
* * I also like to point out beheadings and other interesting ideas
about "interrogation" in that region and suggest the guys in Gitmo are
getting off much easier than they would if their governments got hold
of them.

No problem there. The Geneva and Hague conventions do not apply to "unlawful
enemy combatants."

The Fourth Geneva Convention defines a "lawful" enemy combatant as one who:

1. Wears a distinctive uniform or insignia,
2. Carries arms openly,
3. Submits to a lawful chain-of-command, and
4. Follows the generally accept rules of war.

Absent all four of these conditions, a belligerent is NOT a lawful enemy
combatant.

The protocols go on to define exceptions, such as a hastily organized
militia deployed to engage an invasion, medical personnel, civilian workers
such as those constructing fortifications, truck drivers of military
supplies, and others. None of these excepts apply to "insurgents."

So, then, even IF the Taliban were signatories to the protocols and
conventions, the folks we've captured would STILL be outside the protections
of international agreements.

True but irrelevant. This country used to hold itself to a higher
standard than merely following the letter of the law, and strove to
treat prisoners of whatever status well. And the world knew it.

You mean like when President Roosevelt put hundreds of thousands of
American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps, without
any trials, warrants, indictments, or due process?





At the
close of WWII, why do you think all those Nazis were trying like hell to
flee west? They knew how the Russians treated prisoners. A lot of the
German POWs held in midwest STAYED after the war.

And I'll bet if there is a future war, those same legitimate combat
troops will also flee to the USA instead of some commie countries like
North Korea or Cuba.



It saddens me that our government now thinks the ends justify the means.

We're not fighting a conventional battle against a foreign army that
fights on the battlefield. We're in a whole new world, where
terrorists deliberately kill as many innocent civilians as possible.
Cheney has stated that the info obtained from enhanced interrogation
was of high value and has prevented attacks. He has called for the
information to be declassified so the public can see. Funny thing
though, the Obama administration refuses to do so. If depriving some
foreign terrorist of sleep, playing loud music, turning off their AC,
and pouring water over their head prevents just one bomb from going
off in Times Square, I say it's well worth it







--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 25, 8:25*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

No problem there. The Geneva and Hague conventions do not apply to
"unlawful enemy combatants."

Nonsense. *How often do we have to go over this? *The Fourth Geneva
Convention applies to "those who, at a given moment and in any manner
whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in
the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they
are not nationals".

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...e636b/6756482d...

We'll go over it until it is clear:

You quote Article IV of the 4th Geneva Convention. Had you not quit reading
at that point, you would have encountered Article V.

"Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied
that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person
shall NOT be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present
Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person,
be prejudicial to the security of such State..."

Yeah, it's unbelievable how stupid some people can be. He takes the
section of the Geneva convention that clearly applies to civilians
that are NOT engaged in combat and apply it to terrorists that cut off
the heads of women and throw acid in the face of children trying to go
to school.