They Think It Can't Happen Here Again!!!!

[likwid]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

We still have troops in Germany and Japan over 50 years after we defeated them.

Stop with the "we still have troops in X" because neither of those places would fall apart like Iraq would today, tomorrow, or a year from now if we pulled out.

Those are normal overseas bases, not "occupation forces".

[Raven]

that the enemy is as terrified of democracy as we are of terrorism.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by likwid

Stop with the "we still have troops in X" because neither of those places would fall apart like Iraq would today, tomorrow, or a year from now if we pulled out.

Those are normal overseas bases, not "occupation forces".

But there is no question that they started out as "occupation forces" and the situation in Japan and Germany right after WWII was much the same as it is in Iraq today. Yes, including "insurgents" then referred to as die hards who were still fighting the allied troops well after their goverments had surrendered. Many parts of south pacific weren't "pacified" until several years after the war ended. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[MakoMike]

Spence,

re:"I love how it always comes back to the "remember 9/11" mantra. Does 9/11 weaken the US Constitution? Does it give us freedom to ignore our own laws?

If the Founding Fathers were aware the US Government was secretly detaining large numbers of people without charge they would be rolling in their graves. "

I doubt that. The U.S. consitution does not apply outside the U.S.,, neither do most U.S. laws. Do you think we just tried spies during our other wars when they were caught outside the U.S.? We did, and still do, treat POWs according to the Geneva conventions. But the guys at Gitmo don't qualify for POW status, as they were never in a recognized army to start with. IMHO thay are treating the majority of those guys waaay better than they deserve.

[spence]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Spence,
I doubt that. The U.S. consitution does not apply outside the U.S.,, neither do most U.S. laws. Do you think we just tried spies during our other wars when they were caught outside the U.S.? We did, and still do, treat POWs according to the Geneva conventions. But the guys at Gitmo don't qualify for POW status, as they were never in a recognized army to start with. IMHO thay are treating the majority of those guys waaay better than they deserve.

The US has agreed to International law which many believe we are clearly violating. The Constitution may not dictate International law, but that doesn't mean the Founding Fathers didn't write plenty about how they felt the US should act Globally.

Just because a prisoner isn't a POW doesn't mean there are no rules. If we believe in the Rule of Law then we should establish guidelines for treatment of suspected terrorist prisoners so it's clear we are within bounds. One of the major political failures of GITMO is that it sends the message we are above all law.

-spence

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by spence

The US has agreed to International law which many believe we are clearly violating. The Constitution may not dictate International law, but that doesn't mean the Founding Fathers didn't write plenty about how they felt the US should act Globally.

Just because a prisoner isn't a POW doesn't mean there are no rules. If we believe in the Rule of Law then we should establish guidelines for treatment of suspected terrorist prisoners so it's clear we are within bounds. One of the major political failures of GITMO is that it sends the message we are above all law.

-spence

Name the "International law" that many believe we are violating. there are no rules governing non-POWs. There are no laws, international or otherwise that govern how a soverign nation can treat detainess outside their own country who are not POWs. We are a nation of laws, that is we have laws that govern our actions within the country. Outside the country there are a few international treaties, but other than that, anything goes. That's why we have wars! There aren't and should not be any bounds on how we treat captives who are intent of harming innocent civilians. IMHO anything is fair game. How do you think the spy game is/was played, especially during the cold war? Do you think we fed enemy spies cookies to get the information we wanted out of them?

I know its difficult for epople, who are used to have laws or rules govern every aspect of their lives, but once you step outside the country and engange in hostile acts against a soverign nation, there are no rules. You may wish it otherwise, but that't the way it is and has always been.

[beachwalker]

ok spence, I set myself up for that...

I haven't heard much reporting on "ATROCITIES" at Gitmo since the reports of their return and their subsequent reports....


do you have anything current that I have missed ?

i hope so.....


The right and the left are usually poorly informed, IMO, and that has a huge impact on their rhetoric.

[spence]

Originally Posted by beachwalker

ok spence, I set myself up for that...

I haven't heard much reporting on "ATROCITIES" at Gitmo since the reports of their return and their subsequent reports....

Wasn't that like 2 weeks ago?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Name the "International law" that many believe we are violating. there are no rules governing non-POWs. There are no laws, international or otherwise that govern how a soverign nation can treat detainess outside their own country who are not POWs.

That's simply not true. The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions detail treament of prisoners who don't have POW status. The US Army's field manual even recognizes protections for non-POW's "engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct."

Perhaps even more significant was the recent US Supreme court ruling that "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay."

-spence

[Nebe]

I will never forget the day i was having breakfast and read that bush and CO refused to re-sign the treaty that held american forces liable for international war crimes. I think he was in office for about 1 month. 9/11 hadn't happened yet and when i read that i knew we were going to go to war. I had a hunch it was going to be Iran.
Bush has spent about 90% of his energy on fixing other nations policies and about 10% on our own.. I really dont agree with that..

janefonda was great in barberella IMO

[RIJIMMY]

Im staying out of this one.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by spence

That's simply not true. The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions detail treament of prisoners who don't have POW status. The US Army's field manual even recognizes protections for non-POW's "engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct."

Perhaps even more significant was the recent US Supreme court ruling that "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay."

-spence

O.K., I'm going to have to look up those two treaties. The U.S. army field manual is just that, a manual, no force of law and can be changed at the pentagon's whim. As far as the court rulings go, notice that they didn't say that the Consitution applied, only that the detainees needed to have some sort of hearing. In fact that decision proves my point about the consitution not applying outside the U.S. Do you think the courts would allow a hearing before a military tribunal to pass for justice, inside the U.S. ?