|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > June 2005 > OT- We captured 900 terrorists
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT- We captured 900 terrorists
|
|
| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-06-07, 3:32 am |
| What are we going to do with them? Feed them lunch and release them?
At least we also captured their weapons with bombs, hideouts, etc.
M60 is anxious to speak to them. Attacks have dwindled- of course.
It could be a major victory, but it will be thrown away in the
rediculous and absurd.
Here is Bushs chance to show that he did not lie when he said he would
kill terrorists. I did not believe him when he said it and I challenge
him now to live up to his word.
There are many things that go thru my mind but the kindest treatment I
have come up with is to "rip their guts out"- some of my other thoughts
are too gruesome to mention.
| |
| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-06-07, 8:34 pm |
|
Andrew MacPherson wrote:
quote:
> In article
> <1118119921.303796.167530@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Stockman91790@yahoo.com () wrote:
>
>
> *All* your thoughts are too gruesome to mention. But somehow
> that never seems to stop you.
Do you have mind reading abilities? How do you know what my other
thoughts are if I didn't tell you them? There have been many times
where I will draft a very long post, read it, and delete it. If I
believe that what I say will evoke a fanatical, maniacal response I
won't post it- othertimes I feel a need to just go for it and let it
out. This one made it to print- I hope this one wasn't too gruesome for
you- I tried to keep it pleasant for you.
quote:
> Still, well done for making it OT.
| |
| bradclark1@msn.com 2005-06-08, 12:31 am |
| So gaffo, what would you do with them?
Brad
| |
| gaffo 2005-06-08, 12:31 am |
| Stockman91790@yahoo.com wrote:
quote:
>
> Andrew MacPherson wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you have mind reading abilities?
Herr Himmler is easy enough for a four yr old to read.
which is who you sould like above.
Calling for the murdering of 900 POWs and proud of it I see.
quote:
> How do you know what my other
> thoughts are if I didn't tell you them?
you did - you called for a Jihad of 900 captured POWs.
Goebbels? is that you?
quote:
> There have been many times
> where I will draft a very long post, read it, and delete it. If I
> believe that what I say will evoke a fanatical, maniacal response I
> won't post it-
only maniac posting here is the one calling for the murdering of 900
Prisoners.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> othertimes I feel a need to just go for it and let it
> out. This one made it to print- I hope this one wasn't too gruesome for
> you- I tried to keep it pleasant for you.
>
>
No problem - i've known about Fascists for many years.
most run on Fear.
peace.
before war.
| |
|
| Gaffo is your A-typical liberal who has never been shot at, never had
to deal with any life threatening situation, and thinks that we all
should just love all the terrorists. So he/she/it has no concept of
what the hell he/she/it is talking about.
I suggest gaffo go to Iraq and stand out in the middle of the street in
Baghdad and run his/hers/its mouth and see how long gaffo lasts until
gaffo is a burning hole in the ground. Terrorists are not part of any
national army and are not covered under any protective measures of the
Geneva Conventions and have, in every war, been summarily executed.
These same 900 terrorists that gaffo is so concerned about would not
hesitate 1 second to cut gaffo's throat and the throats of his family,
friends, co-workers (if gaffo is indeed old enough yet to even have a
real job) and everyone gaffo knows. But when this happens, gaffo will
at least be able to say what a wonderful person he/she/it is by kissing
up the XXX of these terrorists while he is dying.
Also it is important to note the 900 terrorist suspects are not under
US control, they are held by the Iraqi government in their own prison
system for interrogation. I highly doubt anyone will be releasing any
of them soon. The Iraqi government is in the midst of a huge crackdown
with a tremendous number of checkpoints grabbing these badguys up off
the streets and getting good intel to capture more.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
| L'acrobat 2005-06-08, 3:31 am |
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:8nspe.1856$751.126@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> Calling for the murdering of 900 POWs and proud of it I see.
Minor factual error. he called for the 'murdering' of 900 terrorists, not
POWs.
Given that, by definition, terrorists are operating outside the laws of war
it is not neccessarily a crime (murder) to kill them.
Convention IV art 68.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
-------------
Now, Iraq and Afghanistan both had the death penalty (and were pretty
enthusiastic about enforcing it) before they were invaded, so according to
the Geneva conventions you can whack most of the 'PWs' on the basis of
article 68.
| |
| James Calivar 2005-06-08, 3:31 am |
|
"L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:LWtpe.7475$F7.5931@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
quote:
>
> Convention IV art 68.
>
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
> Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
> only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
> sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
> intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
> provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
> occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
>
> -------------
>
> Now, Iraq and Afghanistan both had the death penalty (and were pretty
> enthusiastic about enforcing it) before they were invaded, so according to
> the Geneva conventions you can whack most of the 'PWs' on the basis of
> article 68.
>
Beautiful. Thanks for posting this.
james
| |
|
| bradclark1@msn.com wrote:
quote:
> So gaffo, what would you do with them?
>
> Brad
>
lock em up until we can figure out who and what they did.
let the harmless ones go, and charge the harmful ones with whatever
relivant crime - give them a fair court marshall/court trial - impose
sentence if found guilty, let go if found innocent.
The Saddam method - making the condemned dig a trench and kill the 900
without trial is what Stockman proposes.
My moral standards are a little higher than Saddam's - and I hope
America as well.
If not - I'll gladly leave this sad Land, and call another Liberty
loving Nation home.
| |
|
| gaffo wrote:
quote:
> L'acrobat wrote:
>
>
>
> you are legally correct and morally lacking.
>
>
> the question is not do we ahve the legal right to kill the 900 - it is
> do we have the moral right?
>
> I shall have no part in an America which proclaims a moral right to
> execute 900 men who have surrendered on the battlefield.
>
>
> ...................you guys are living 60 yrs to late and 500 miles to
> far west.
>
>
5000 miles...........
--
Oh! Death to Nancy
What is this taht I can see
Cold icy hands taking hold of me
for Death has come, you all can see.
Hell has open it,s gate to trick me.
Oh! Death, Oh! Death, can't you spare
me, over for another year!
I'll stuff your jaws till you can't talk
I'll blind your leg's till you can't walk
I'll tie your hands till you can't make a
stand.
And finally I'll close your eyes so you
can't see
I'll bring sexual death unto you for me.
B.T.K.
Oh, Anna Why Didn’t You Appear
T’ was perfect plan of deviant pleasure so bold on that Spring nite
My inner felling hot with propension of the new awakening season
Warn, wet with inner fear and rapture, my pleasure of entanglement, like
new vines at night
Oh, Anna, Why Didn’t You Appear
Drop of fear fresh Spring rain would roll down from your nakedness to
scent to lofty fever that burns within,
In that small world of longing, fear, rapture, and desparation, the game
we play, fall on devil ears
Fantasy spring forth, mounts, to storm fury, then winter clam at the end.
Oh, Anna Why Didn’t You Appear
Alone, now in another time span I lay with sweet enrapture garments
across most private thought
Bed of Spring moist grass, clean before the sun, enslaved with control,
warm wind scenting the air, sun light sparkle tears in eyes so deep and
clear.
Alone again I trod in pass memory of mirrors, and ponder why for number
eight was not.
Oh, Anna Why Didn’t You Appear
B.T.K.
(after 31 yrs, as of 01/25/05 letters made public - not by WPD however)
http://www.catchbtk.com/letters.html
http://p216.ezboard.com/fcrimeandju...picID=884.topic
| |
|
| CAG wrote:
quote:
> Gaffo is your A-typical liberal
yes I do love Liberty. Your tone implies that you do not.
quote:
> who has never been shot at,
thankfully.
quote:
> never had
> to deal with any life threatening situation, and thinks that we all
> should just love
Liberty.
quote:
> all the terrorists. So he/she/it has no concept of
> what the hell he/she/it is talking about.
I know a Stormtrooper when I hear one. That all anyone need to know in
this day and age.
quote:
> I suggest gaffo go to Iraq and stand out in the middle of the street in
> Baghdad and run his/hers/its mouth and see how long gaffo lasts until
> gaffo is a burning hole in the ground.
why would I go to a land which my own people occupy illegally?
this is your stupid war (to lose) - not mine. you go!
quote:
> Terrorists are not part of any
> national army and are not covered under any protective measures of the
> Geneva Conventions
true.
quote:
> and have, in every war, been summarily executed.
by immoral Nations and thugs.
America is better than that. (or she used to be!)
quote:
> These same 900 terrorists that gaffo is so concerned about
I'm concerned about America's Soul idiot.
quote:
> would not
> hesitate 1 second to cut gaffo's throat and the throats of his family,
> friends, co-workers (if gaffo is indeed old enough yet to even have a
> real job) and everyone gaffo knows.
true.
and totally irrelivant WRT to our own Moral Standing as a Nation that
supports Liberty above Fascism.
you would have us decend to their level - thus become no better nor
different than those we fight. you support the Senator Imhofe Moral
Compass. "as long as we are not as bad as Saddam who gives a XXXX"
you would have us become Saddam to win - at which point we've lost!
not the war - just our Soul.
I'd prefer we lose our little "War" - over our National Soul!
quote:
> But when this happens, gaffo will
> at least be able to say what a wonderful person he/she/it is by kissing
> up the XXX of these terrorists while he is dying.
turns you on just thinking about about it don't it? Fascist.
quote:
> Also it is important to note the 900 terrorist suspects are not under
> US control, they are held by the Iraqi government in their own prison
> system for interrogation. I highly doubt anyone will be releasing any
> of them soon. The Iraqi government is in the midst of a huge crackdown
> with a tremendous number of checkpoints grabbing these badguys up off
> the streets and getting good intel to capture more.
| |
|
| L'acrobat wrote:
quote:
> "gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
> news:8nspe.1856$751.126@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
>
> Minor factual error. he called for the 'murdering' of 900 terrorists, not
> POWs.
>
> Given that, by definition, terrorists are operating outside the laws of war
> it is not neccessarily a crime (murder) to kill them.
>
> Convention IV art 68.
>
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
> Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
> only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
> sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
> intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
> provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
> occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
>
> -------------
>
> Now, Iraq and Afghanistan both had the death penalty (and were pretty
> enthusiastic about enforcing it) before they were invaded, so according to
> the Geneva conventions you can whack most of the 'PWs' on the basis of
> article 68.
>
>
you are legally correct and morally lacking.
the question is not do we ahve the legal right to kill the 900 - it is
do we have the moral right?
I shall have no part in an America which proclaims a moral right to
execute 900 men who have surrendered on the battlefield.
....................you guys are living 60 yrs to late and 500 miles to
far west.
| |
| bradclark1@msn.com 2005-06-08, 6:43 am |
| gaffo, the only thing I can do is shake my head. I don't know what
world you are living in. Must be nic.
Brad
| |
| L'acrobat 2005-06-08, 6:43 am |
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:bCupe.1891$751.348@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
>
> you are legally correct and morally lacking.
>
So the Geneva conventions are immoral when they don't agree with your
opinion now?
quote:
>
> the question is not do we ahve the legal right to kill the 900 - it is do
> we have the moral right?
>
> I shall have no part in an America which proclaims a moral right to
> execute 900 men who have surrendered on the battlefield.
>
>
> ...................you guys are living 60 yrs to late and 500 miles to far
> west.
You want me to live in New Zealand in 1945?
But I don't like sheep.
| |
| L'acrobat 2005-06-08, 6:43 am |
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:bCupe.1891$751.348@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> I shall have no part in an America which proclaims a moral right to
> execute 900 men who have surrendered on the battlefield.
and were not wearing uniforms or insignia and were not part of any
recognised military force, 900 men who also targeted civilians and used
civilians to hide amongst.
900 men who violated most of the laws of war (laws put there to protect the
innocent).
There are reasons the Geneva conventions specifically allow for the
execution of such men , men who who fight out of uniform or commit
atrocities - i.e., murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants - may
be sent before firing squads.
If you want the protection of the Geneva conventions, you must abide by
them.
| |
|
|
"L'acrobat" wrote
quote:
>
> You want me to live in New Zealand in 1945?
>
> But I don't like sheep.
>
Well Kangaroos are too hard to catch.
| |
| leadfoot 2005-06-08, 6:43 am |
| Yep 900 terrorist rounded up
The Waffen SS would certainly know what to do with those animals... and
their wives and their children
No need for trials.
If the Waffen SS was in charge I doubt that any of them would be breathing.
That what you and Sadda...er, uh Stocky want right?
| |
| leadfoot 2005-06-08, 8:34 pm |
|
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> true.
[vbcol=seagreen]
Wrong the 1949 Geneva Convention article 5 does protect terrorists from
summary execution...
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4
from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final
release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent
act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the
categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection
of the present Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal
Article 4
A. 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 as well as members
of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
conditions:
( a ) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
( b ) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
( c ) That of carrying arms openly;
( d ) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or
an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members
thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war
correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services
responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have
received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall
provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed
model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the
merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the
conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other
provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy
spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had
time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms
openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the
present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the
occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of
such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them
while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in
particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin
the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or
where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to
internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present
Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on
their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under
international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which
these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10,
15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations
exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent
Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such
diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons
depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a
Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to
the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with
diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and
chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
| |
|
| Gaffo, but you do not even know your own definitions... (do you even
know the true definition of your own moniker?)
Liberal has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberty. Liberty is something
you earn and defend. Liberalism is just a smart mouth with nothing to
back it up. Perhaps if you would spend more time exercising your mind
instead of your virtual jaw you would have learned this, but if you are
a product of the failed liberal public school system then I am not
surprised. Thus you are the perfect example of a liberal... No brains,
no commonsense, and no guts. And ohhhh so intelluctual that you have to
resort to name calling to try to compensate for your own failings.
Stormtrooper? Sorry, no gaffo, you dont even know the definition of the
word. However, unlike you, I am no coward. I have served and defended
those that could not do so for themselves. What is your excuse for not
doing the same, gaffo? Here you happily sit, on your cowardly XXX,
never willing to do a thing to defend your country or fellow citizen,
while you criticize others for doing so. I fully understand why you
would not go to Iraq, because you would be shot at by both sides! You
are pathetic...
Executing 900 terrorists would be nothing new to this country's histroy
and you would know that if you had bothered to learn anything in
school. Our very first wars we did this. Torrys were shot on sight.
After the Revolutionary War, in the first major deployment of US
Marines, ordered by President Jefferson, we engaged and destroyed the
Barbary Pirate fleets in the Med and occupied their coastal enclaves.
Executing these terrorists en mass. However, again, since you have
chosen to ignore the fact that these 900 terrorists are not under our
control, we will not be determining their fate. The Iraqis will, with
the freedom they now have, that we gave them, that you complain about.
I am certain you will whine some more about this, continuing to ignore
the reality and the facts...
Gaffo...
You would have preferred that we had left Saddam in charge in Iraq to
finish his deadly work of multiple death and torture for millions of
Iraqis and sooner or later again on those nations that border Iraq?
Again your lack of moral courage is alarming, but not surprising
considering your obviously limited intellect. Perhaps if you would have
spent time actually learned from history instead of coasting through
your courses you would have seen the obvious necessity of our actions.
But such a concept is beyond the capabilites of a whinning worm...
I feel very sorry for you... You will have to live the rest of your
life with the full knowledge that you are a true yellow blooded coward.
No guts and no balls. Enjoy your hollow life, coward...
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
|
|
"leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZIzpe.7934$qr.4678@fed1read06...
quote:
>
>
> Minor nit I don't think they surrendered they were captured.
They were armed combatants on the battlfield with no identifier, and
were also attacking non military targets, and or were caught breaking
all legal norms and laws.
quote:
> So long as the gov't of Iraq gives them a fair trial they can all be
> executed.
According to the geneva convention. (which terrorists don't follow
to begin with !) It is the job of the occupying power to do this.
Not the govt of said country..............
Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
| |
| leadfoot 2005-06-08, 8:34 pm |
|
"AM" <SCTUSER@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_oadnc1gUuEZfzvfRVn-2w@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ZIzpe.7934$qr.4678@fed1read06...
>
> They were armed combatants on the battlfield with no identifier, and
> were also attacking non military targets, and or were caught breaking
> all legal norms and laws.
>
>
>
>
> According to the geneva convention. (which terrorists don't follow
> to begin with !) It is the job of the occupying power to do this.
> Not the govt of said country..............
>
they've already been tirned over to the Iraqi Gov't which can try them under
article 5
Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4
from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final
release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent
act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the
categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection
of the present Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allan
>
>
> --
> Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
>
| |
| leadfoot 2005-06-08, 8:34 pm |
|
quote:
>
>
> you are legally correct and morally lacking.
>
>
> the question is not do we ahve the legal right to kill the 900 - it is do
> we have the moral right?
>
> I shall have no part in an America which proclaims a moral right to
> execute 900 men who have surrendered on the battlefield.
Minor nit I don't think they surrendered they were captured.
So long as the gov't of Iraq gives them a fair trial they can all be
executed. Mind you I'll be surprised if they all are but I'm sure that
those who have been captured with weapons whose bullets match up to murders
they have committed WILL be sentenced to death. This has already happened
to some of the terrorist already who have been previously captured and have
forensic firearms evicence against them..
quote:
>
>
> ...................you guys are living 60 yrs to late and 500 miles to far
> west.
>
>
| |
|
| Leadfoot, I hate to burst your bubble...
But the 2002 Geneva Protocol to the original accords specificially
lists...
Reaffirming their unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and
practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of
their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and
by whomever committed.
Thus terrorists are specificially listed in the Geneva Accords as
criminals and the Iraqi government has posted shoot on sight warrants
on those engaging in these criminal acts. Also the US ended its
occupation when the elected Iraqi Govenment assumed office and only
functions as supporting forces under the request for help issued by
this recognized government in battling these criminals.
Thus they have not gained POW status and are under the jurisdiction of
the Iraqi security forces when captured.
Of course, if you do not agree with this then you can always go over
there and complain, I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms...
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
| leadfoot 2005-06-09, 12:31 am |
|
"CAG" <CAG@forums.simradar.com> wrote in message
news:1118281465.4867@forums.simradar.com...
quote:
> Leadfoot, I hate to burst your bubble...
>
> But the 2002 Geneva Protocol to the original accords specificially
> lists...
Link please, I can't find it in wikipedia or on the UN site
quote:
>
> Reaffirming their unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and
> practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of
> their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and
> by whomever committed.
>
> Thus terrorists are specificially listed in the Geneva Accords as
> criminals and the Iraqi government has posted shoot on sight warrants
> on those engaging in these criminal acts.
I hae to burst your bubble CAG...
They have to be engaging in the acts to be shot on sight. I think they call
this.... Combat. This would apply to US forces. What the Iraqi's want to
do to the terorist they catch or have tirned over to them is up to them
although they seem to be giving terrorist who have been captured at least a
rudimentary trial. Three were tried recently and sentenced to death based
on firearms forensic evidence. I think the trial lasted about 2 hours with
a lawyer that was appointed two days earlier. As Sherman said "war is
hell". I'm sure they'll get it right sooner or later.
If they are captured or surrender they are still subject to article 5. Even
if they aren't they can't under any circumstances be summarily executed but
must be tried by a competent tribunal
BTW Just to set things straight
I'm not a pacifist. I spent six years in the USAF. I think it's great for
our guys to be successful and send terrorist to meet allah so they can be
rewarded by having 72 faggots XXXX them in their virgin XXX in hell.
However I don't want the US military to engage in acts that are more
appropriate to the waffen SS as some here suggest. That just makes us as
bad as the terrorist and will increase their numbers rather than decrease
them. Seems as though Bush et al are working to make more terrorist not
less which isn't a good idea... unless you need to get elected by the
sheep.
Also the US ended its
quote:
> occupation when the elected Iraqi Govenment assumed office and only
> functions as supporting forces under the request for help issued by
> this recognized government in battling these criminals.
>
> Thus they have not gained POW status and are under the jurisdiction of
> the Iraqi security forces when captured.
>
> Of course, if you do not agree with this then you can always go over
> there and complain, I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms...
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
> Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
|
|
"leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:sGBpe.7938$qr.1743@fed1read06...
quote:
>
> they've already been tirned over to the Iraqi Gov't which can try them
> under article 5
>
> Article 5
>
> The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4
> from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final
> release and repatriation.
>
> Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
> belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
> any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy
> the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status
> has been determined by a competent tribunal
>
Somehow I don't think the Iraqi courts will fail to bring them to justice...
Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
| |
| leadfoot 2005-06-09, 3:31 am |
|
"AM" <SCTUSER@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rYudnVE5QvSxXzrfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "leadfoot" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:sGBpe.7938$qr.1743@fed1read06...
>
>
>
>
> Somehow I don't think the Iraqi courts will fail to bring them to
> justice...
Three were tried recently and sentenced to death based on firearms forensic
evidence. I think the trial lasted about 2 hours with a lawyer that was
appointed two days earlier. As Sherman said "war is hell". I'm sure
they'll get it right sooner or later
quote:
>
>
>
> Allan
>
>
> --
> Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
>
>
>
>
| |
| Simon Robbins 2005-06-09, 8:34 pm |
| "L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:LWtpe.7475$F7.5931@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
quote:
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
> Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
> only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
> sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
> intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
> provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
> occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
But you still have to prove the individuals are guilty of those offences.
The problem with Afghanistan was that the US paid it's Northern Alliance
allies every time they handed a "terrorist" over, and so they went around
rounding up anyone who looked Arabic. There may well be a great deal of
innocent people held in US custody.
Si
| |
| L'acrobat 2005-06-10, 12:31 am |
|
"Simon Robbins" <simon@NOSPAMsjrobbins.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d8a52v$bu0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
quote:
> "L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:LWtpe.7475$F7.5931@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> But you still have to prove the individuals are guilty of those offences.
> The problem with Afghanistan was that the US paid it's Northern Alliance
> allies every time they handed a "terrorist" over, and so they went around
> rounding up anyone who looked Arabic. There may well be a great deal of
> innocent people held in US custody.
absolutely, but those captured in combat are pretty much a given and those
the US can't execute (under article 68), they can just hand over to the
Afghans and Iraqis and allow their judicial system to execute.
However, art 68 is not the only provision of the GC that allows for
execution of terrorists.
Just out of curiosity, how many legitimate Arab tourists do you figure have
been spending time seeing the sights in Afghanistan in the last 4 years or
so?
| |
| PAPADOC 2005-06-10, 12:31 am |
| The law and past history says that ununiformed combatants are merely lined up
against a wall and shot. A step less than that is simply to allow them to live
until the end of this war.
That this war is gonna last a long time is their fault not ours. If their
families want them home sooner then have them discuss that with the
Islamofacists who are making this war on us.
quote:
>lock em up until we can figure out who and what they did.
>
>let the harmless ones go, and charge the harmful ones with whatever
>relivant crime - give them a fair court marshall/court trial - impose
>sentence if found guilty, let go if found innocent.
>
>
>The Saddam method - making the condemned dig a trench and kill the 900
>without trial is what Stockman proposes.
>
>My moral standards are a little higher than Saddam's - and I hope
>America as well.
>
>
>If not - I'll gladly leave this sad Land, and call another Liberty
>loving Nation home.
Well we will miss you...
PAPADOC
My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html
| |
|
| PAPADOC wrote:
quote:
> The law and past history says that ununiformed combatants are merely lined up
> against a wall and shot.
give Himmler my love
quote:
> That this war is gonna last a long time is their fault not ours.
nothing is our fault - we immulate the President in all things.
quote:
> If their
> families want them home sooner then have them discuss that with the
> Islamofacists who are making this war on us.
>
>
>
>
> Well we will miss you...
you lie. I will not miss you. Give Hess my regards.
quote:
>
> PAPADOC
>
> My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
> www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
| |
|
| CAG wrote:
quote:
> Leadfoot, I hate to burst your bubble...
>
> But the 2002 Geneva Protocol to the original accords specificially
> lists...
>
> Reaffirming their unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and
> practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of
> their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and
> by whomever committed.
we await your relivant print part of this document to support your
assurtion.
quote:
> Thus terrorists are specificially listed in the Geneva Accords as
> criminals
- site.
also site where in the Accords "criminals" can be summariy executed.
quote:
> and the Iraqi government has posted shoot on sight warrants
> on those engaging in these criminal acts.
which is irrelivant since we are talking about the US policy and that
"shoot on sight" is not the same as taking those who are surrendering.
Has the new Puppet Iraqi govermnet even signed the Geneva Accords?
...............BTW who gives a shit what "they" do - I care about what WE do!
quote:
> Also the US ended its
> occupation when the elected Iraqi Govenment assumed office
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you are full of shit - totally!!
or totally naive and no older than 7 yrs of age.
quote:
> and only
> functions as supporting forces under the request for help issued by
> this recognized government in battling these criminals.
TOTAL BULLSHIT!
Bush could sell you a plate of dogshit and you'd think you were eating
caviar (as long as he told you so!!)
grow up!
quote:
> Thus they have not gained POW status and are under the jurisdiction of
> the Iraqi security forces when captured.
Iraqi government is not a legitimate gov. - though that puppet sham may
be recognized by most Nations by now - it is by the UN now.
relivance to summary execution which you are promoting?
quote:
> Of course, if you do not agree with this then you can always go over
> there and complain, I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms...
We'll just complain here - since we are the creators of the Iraqi
government and my (our) tax dollars are paying for is existance.
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act
as the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We
Sending to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With
Their Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a
jury to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask
the jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602.
Thus have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional
priorities and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you
may not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
| |
|
| gaffo,
Its a shame your intellect doesn't match your big mouth. If you
wouldn't be so lazy as to ask everyone else to do your own work to try
to find the facts that you obviously don't have the capacity to find,
you would see a simple google search of the accords would turn up the
most recent amendments and protocols to the treaties concerning
definitions and additional effects of more modern conventional weapons,
thus altering the accords to increase the ban on specific weapons. This
is where the international definition of terrorists was ratified and
approved by all countries attending and the amendments agreed upon.
Summary executions have been authorized by the current government in
Iraq, but again you should have known this if you had done even the
most basic of research.
However, the fact that you have not done so is not surprising and
simply strengthens my position. I suggest you do a bit more research
before running off on your keyboard again, as I doubt you have room in
your mouth for both your feet. However, I again will not be surprised
to see you do so with extreme vigor, as its obvious with the language
you use that an intelligent conversation is well beyond your
capabilities.
BTW you misspelled irrelevant...
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
| gaffo 2005-06-11, 12:32 am |
| CAG wrote:
quote:
> Gaffo, but you do not even know your own definitions... (do you even
> know the true definition of your own moniker?)
Gaffe - HaHa!! how original. never got that one before.............ya.
quote:
> Liberal has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberty. Liberty is something
> you earn and defend.
Nope - Chump.
Liberty is something one has to respect.
strike ONE!!
Nobody has had "earn" their Inalienable Rights - we are give them by God.
Thugs do try to deny them however.
- not the same thing -
quote:
> Liberalism is just a smart mouth with nothing to
> back it up.
Zig!!
yes Liberals "are just a notch above the Jews"
amen.
quote:
> Perhaps if you would spend more time exercising your mind
> instead of your virtual jaw you would have learned this, but if you are
> a product of the failed liberal public school system then I am not
> surprised.
you hatred of Liberty is nearly infinate.........and noted for all to
read here and now.
quote:
> Thus you are the perfect example of a liberal... No brains,
> no commonsense, and no guts.
and yet.................one of us may have all the above and have no
respect for Liberty.
quote:
> And ohhhh so intelluctual that you have to
> resort to name calling to try to compensate for your own failings.
>
> Stormtrooper? Sorry, no gaffo, you dont even know the definition of the
> word. However, unlike you, I am no coward.
many SS men were brave thugs - willing to kill for their Fuhrer. You
obviously love yours as well.
being a brave thug who hates Liberty is not a virtue.
quote:
> I have served and defended
> those that could not do so for themselves.
Good, as you should - no go defend Liberty while it is being assulated
by our President!!
to not do such is to be - either:
1. and thug (Stormtrooper)
2. a fool
3. a coward
which are you?
Your precious Bu$hler only wants to make ALL of the PATRIOT ACT
permanent!!!!!!!!
Oh ya - forget - you loathe Liberty.
ZIEG!
I will give you a benefit of the doubt and assume you fall into catagory
#2 above.
(thank you for your LEGITIMATE service - prior to this thug in chief in
office today).
quote:
> What is your excuse for not
> doing the same, gaffo?
I'm doing just that!! - as more Germans should have in 1933 - and yet
remained silent.
BHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BBBBBAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHWWWWWWW
BBBBAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHH yep lets make all the PATRIOT Act
permanent...........nothing here but sheep.
quote:
> Here you happily sit, on your cowardly XXX,
Yes I'm a coward to not kill those in Iraq and help occupy her illegally
and in total convtravention the Rule of Law.
Yes I'm a coward to not participate in a stupid war which is not related
to the War on Terror.
Yep.
quote:
> never willing to do a thing to defend your country or fellow citizen,
I defend it by blasting NAZIS like you - and the other cowards/naives
who are too afraid of the buggyman to see who and where the REAL threat
to Liberty is.
quote:
> while you criticize others for doing so. I fully understand why you
> would not go to Iraq, because you would be shot at by both sides! You
> are pathetic...
Give Hitler my love asswipe................you should have been born 60
yrs ago, you would have fit Reich in.
quote:
> Executing 900 terrorists would be nothing
yes indeed. That your love for Liberty showing Herr CAG?
quote:
> new to this country's histroy
> and you would know that if you had bothered to learn anything in
> school.
then such events would not be respected and condoned (unless you are a
Stormtrooper of course - then such death and depravity should be worshiped).
quote:
> Our very first wars we did this. Torrys were shot on sight.
> After the Revolutionary War,
Ok by you of course.
Give by love to Goebbels.
quote:
> in the first major deployment of US
> Marines, ordered by President Jefferson, we engaged and destroyed the
> Barbary Pirate fleets in the Med and occupied their coastal enclaves.
> Executing these terrorists en mass.
gives you a woody thinking about such things - no doubt.
quote:
> However, again, since you have
> chosen to ignore the fact that these 900 terrorists are not under our
> control, we will not be determining their fate.
Well then, why are you bothing to post on this matter?
The Iraqis will, with
quote:
> the freedom they now have, that we gave them, that you complain about.
We will NEVER leave Iraq - puppet government or no.
quote:
> I am certain you will whine some more about this, continuing to ignore
> the reality and the facts...
reality is you didn't address my point - that you support NAZI mentality
and that winning a war at the cost of a Nation Losing its Soul is ok by you.
you silence on this - and the only matter - is noted by me and all who
read this public thread.
quote:
>
> Gaffo...
>
> You would have preferred that we had left Saddam in charge
if that was the only legal thing to do? - absolutely!!
quote:
> in Iraq to
> finish his deadly work of multiple death and torture for millions of
> Iraqis
nearly all of his killing was done when Reagan was supporting him - you
know this (or should!!) - stop lying on this matter.
quote:
> and sooner or later again on those nations that border Iraq?
Saddam was CONTAINED for 12 yrs - he would ahve been easily contained
for another 12!!
quote:
> Again your lack of moral courage is alarming,
LOL!!!!!!!!!
a lesson on "moral Courage" from a man who is defending policies Hilter
esteamed.
does Hypocracy get any more blatent than this????????
quote:
> but not surprising
> considering your obviously limited intellect. Perhaps if you would have
> spent time actually learned from history instead of coasting through
> your courses you would have seen the obvious necessity of our actions.
> But such a concept is beyond the capabilites of a whinning worm...
>
> I feel very sorry for you...
I doubt it.
quote:
> You will have to live the rest of your
> life with the full knowledge that you are a true yellow blooded coward.
To defend Article 6 and thus Liberty.......while you simply shit upon it.
whatever Bubba.
- you may not be a coward, you sure as shit are a NAZI howver.
quote:
> No guts and no balls. Enjoy your hollow life, coward...
better a coward than a Stormtrooper, prick.
give Adolf my love CAG!
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
| |
| L'acrobat 2005-06-11, 12:32 am |
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:HWqqe.3289$%j7.1887@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> L'acrobat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm simply assuming for argument that - en mass slaughter may be legal per
> the Geneva Accords.
>
>
> If it is - than yes the Geneva Accords are immoral when thay don;t agree
> with human decency.
>
The problem with the above is that YOU do not define human decency, though
it would appear that, in your mind, you assume that your ill informed
opinion = human decency.
or to put it another way -
BRITANNUS (Shocked):
"Caesar, this is not proper."
THEODOTUS (outraged):
"How?"
CAESAR (recovering his self possession):
"Pardon him. Theodotus, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs
of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II
George Bernard Shaw
quote:
>
> I'm farily sure that the Accords don't advicate mass slaughter to
> surrenderees - even though you may.
>
>
Which part of the quoted article (Convention IV art 68) do you think
excludes the possibility of executing a mass of terrorists on the basis that
there seem to be a lot of them?
If we adopt that standard, should we refuse to prosecute and punish child
molesters if it turns out that we have caught more than 900 in 4 years?
Speeding, you see a fair bit of that - no more prosecutions then?
You see, for a law to be fair and impartial, you cannot care how many people
get caught breaking it, you apply the law regardless.
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
> New Zealand is west of the USA.
>
Well spotted.
But I'm not in the USA.
quote:
>
> look eastward my son.
>
At New Zealand again?
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Zee must have order Herr Himmler!
>
If you aren't winning the argument, play the Nazi card?
quote:
>
>
>
> The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and
> the facts.
>
> Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
>
Geneva Convention IV art 68.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
| |
| L'acrobat 2005-06-11, 12:32 am |
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:oYqqe.3290$%j7.2911@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> L'acrobat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> again - assuming the Accords legalize the immoral actions you condone.
>
Convention IV art 68.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
Which part of the above direct quote from the conventions do YOU think
doesn't legalise killing terrorists?
Perhaps you should READ them?
quote:
>
> America is better than that.
>
>
Quite likely, but the problem again is that YOU don't define 'better', USA
has certainly executed sabotuers in the past - FDR ordered all eight Nazi
saboteuers captured in 1942 to be tried by military tribunal. On August 8,
six were executed in a D.C. jail, buried in unmarked graves (the other 2 had
defected and betrayed their comrades).
Was FDR immoral? would he have been immoral if it was 80 Saboteurs? or 800
Saboteurs?
quote:
> Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising
> their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction
> that the charge of the court is wrong.
>
> Alexander Hamilton, 1804
>
Convention IV art 68.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
| |
| L'acrobat 2005-06-11, 12:32 am |
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:k1rqe.3291$%j7.802@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
>
> we beleive in "due process" the the "Rule of Law" - the Bu$hler worshipers
> don't - they think in Black abnd White and their God is "Force"
>
>
> they shit on "Rule of Law"
You are the one shitting on "Rule of Law".
The laws of war and the Geneva conventions both make it quite clear that the
Terrorists are legally executable - you are the one saying America should
not obey those laws and conventions.
Funny really, how shrill you are in your defence of Rule of Law, right up to
the point that the actual Law is shown to you (remember art 68? - as one
quick example), then you cry "America is better than that!".
So in your opinion, America is better than the law....
and you accuse others of being Nazis?
Did you enjoy shitting on "Rule of Law" Gaffo - did you even REALISE you
were doing it?
| |
| gaffo 2005-06-11, 12:32 am |
| CAG wrote:
quote:
> gaffo,
>
> Its a shame your intellect doesn't match your big mouth. If you
> wouldn't be so lazy as to ask everyone else to do your own work to try
> to find the facts that you obviously don't have the capacity to find,
> you would see a simple google search of the accords would turn up the
> most recent amendments and protocols to the treaties concerning
> definitions and additional effects of more modern conventional weapons,
> thus altering the accords to increase the ban on specific weapons. This
> is where the international definition of terrorists was ratified and
> approved by all countries attending and the amendments agreed upon.
>
> Summary executions have been authorized by the current government in
> Iraq, but again you should have known this if you had done even the
> most basic of research.
>
> However, the fact that you have not done so is not surprising and
> simply strengthens my position. I suggest you do a bit more research
> before running off on your keyboard again, as I doubt you have room in
> your mouth for both your feet. However, I again will not be surprised
> to see you do so with extreme vigor, as its obvious with the language
> you use that an intelligent conversation is well beyond your
> capabilities.
>
> BTW you misspelled irrelevant...
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
> Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
sweet!!! - not only a NAZI in real life but Spelling NAZI too boot.
- no - let me guess, "these color bleed" reich?
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
| |
| gaffo 2005-06-11, 12:32 am |
| bradclark1@msn.com wrote:
quote:
> gaffo, the only thing I can do is shake my head. I don't know what
> world you are living in. Must be nic.
>
> Brad
>
care to elaborate Brad?
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
| |
| gaffo 2005-06-11, 12:32 am |
| L'acrobat wrote:
quote:
> "gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
> news:bCupe.1891$751.348@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
>
> So the Geneva conventions are immoral when they don't agree with your
> opinion now?
I'm simply assuming for argument that - en mass slaughter may be legal
per the Geneva Accords.
If it is - than yes the Geneva Accords are immoral when thay don;t agree
with human decency.
I'm farily sure that the Accords don't advicate mass slaughter to
surrenderees - even though you may.
quote:
>
>
> You want me to live in New Zealand in 1945?
New Zealand is west of the USA.
look eastward my son.
quote:
>
> But I don't like sheep.
Zee must have order Herr Himmler!
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
| |
| gaffo 2005-06-11, 12:32 am |
| L'acrobat wrote:
quote:
> "gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
> news:bCupe.1891$751.348@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
>
> and were not wearing uniforms or insignia and were not part of any
> recognised military force, 900 men who also targeted civilians and used
> civilians to hide amongst.
>
> 900 men who violated most of the laws of war (laws put there to protect the
> innocent).
>
> There are reasons the Geneva conventions specifically allow for the
> execution of such men , men who who fight out of uniform or commit
> atrocities - i.e., murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants - may
> be sent before firing squads.
>
> If you want the protection of the Geneva conventions, you must abide by
> them.
again - assuming the Accords legalize the immoral actions you condone.
America is better than that.
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
| |
| gaffo 2005-06-11, 12:32 am |
| leadfoot wrote:
quote:
>
>
> Minor nit I don't think they surrendered they were captured.
>
> So long as the gov't of Iraq gives them a fair trial
Fair trial is all I've been asking for!!!
Some Stormtroopers here just want to line all of them up and slaughter
them without Trial. "let God sort it out".
folks advicating such are thugs in my book.
they can all be
quote:
> executed.
ageed -yet Herr Pappy and CAG have not said a ting about no wussy Trial.
Mind you I'll be surprised if they all are but I'm sure that
quote:
> those who have been captured with weapons whose bullets match up to murders
> they have committed WILL be sentenced to death.
we beleive in "due process" the the "Rule of Law" - the Bu$hler
worshipers don't - they think in Black abnd White and their God is "Force"
they shit on "Rule of Law"
This has already happened
quote:
> to some of the terrorist already who have been previously captured and have
> forensic firearms evicence against them..
>
>
>
>
>
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
| |
|
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:k1rqe.3291$%j7.802@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> leadfoot wrote:
quote:
>
>
>
>
> Fair trial is all I've been asking for!!!
>
Well since you have asked, now what ??
I mean, what do you hope to achieve here with your shrill tone ?
Nothing said here will change any public/government policy
in any way, yet you persist... What could you possible hope to
achieve except to antagonize people ?
Thos people will get whatever trial that the Iraqi govt wants
to give them, your current feelings to the contrary aside.
So are you happy now ? Feel better ?
I bet you really think you are a useful human being.
I love your low class language BTW. But then, I bet you
think that you actually have class. Amazing..................
Allan
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
| |
| gaffo 2005-06-11, 12:33 am |
| L'acrobat wrote:
quote:
> "gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
> news:HWqqe.3289$%j7.1887@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
> The problem with the above is that YOU do not define human decency, though
> it would appear that, in your mind, you assume that your ill informed
> opinion = human decency.
>
> or to put it another way -
>
> BRITANNUS (Shocked):
> "Caesar, this is not proper."
>
> THEODOTUS (outraged):
> "How?"
>
> CAESAR (recovering his self possession):
> "Pardon him. Theodotus, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs
> of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
>
> Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II
> George Bernard Shaw
>
>
>
>
> Which part of the quoted article (Convention IV art 68) do you think
> excludes the possibility of executing a mass of terrorists on the basis that
> there seem to be a lot of them?
>
> If we adopt that standard, should we refuse to prosecute and punish child
> molesters if it turns out that we have caught more than 900 in 4 years?
>
> Speeding, you see a fair bit of that - no more prosecutions then?
>
> You see, for a law to be fair and impartial, you cannot care how many people
> get caught breaking it, you apply the law regardless.
Law accompies a Due Process - somehting your henchmen don't seem to value.
kill-em and let Gawd sort it out mentality.
again, if you call that human decency - fine, just don't expect the
majority of others to agree with you.
quote:
>
> Geneva Convention IV art 68.
>
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
> Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
> only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
> sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
> intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
> provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
> occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
point to the part where a Trial is denied please.
for this is what your henchmen are advicating.
--
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
| |
| gaffo 2005-06-11, 12:33 am |
| L'acrobat wrote:
quote:
> Convention IV art 68.
>
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
> Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
> only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
> sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
> intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
> provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
> occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
>
> Which part of the above direct quote from the conventions do YOU think
> doesn't legalise killing terrorists?
>
> Perhaps you should READ them?
maybe you have forgotten the original post on this thread?
"line them up and shoot them" to sum up.
Now - i ask again, site the Accord which grants the execution of
surrenderess without Due Process.
for that is what your Henchmen buddies are advicating.
quote:
>
>
> Quite likely, but the problem again is that YOU don't define 'better',
"better" is self evident to most.
If you are at a loss, you may need some help in ethics.
quote:
> USA
> has certainly executed sabotuers in the past
without Trial?
Herr Stockmen is advicating just such. Are you?
- FDR ordered all eight Nazi
quote:
> saboteuers captured in 1942 to be tried by military tribunal. On August 8,
> six were executed in a D.C. jail, buried in unmarked graves (the other 2 had
> defected and betrayed their comrades).
irrelivant - since Herr Stockmen did not advicate the execution 900
AFTER a trial.
quote:
> Was FDR immoral? would he have been immoral if it was 80 Saboteurs? or 800
> Saboteurs?
in this case? - I dont know. I'm not informed enough on the matter of
these trials.
Was he immoral in knwing about the genicide of the Jews and not
releasing that information at large to teh public? yes!
was he immoral in locking up Japs in internment camps? yes!
................or are you a "moral relativist" - one without a moral
center...........until it can be legalized and codified as "moral" by
our appointed authorities?
quote:
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
> Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
> only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
> sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
> intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
> provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
> occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
Clause that denies a Trail??...........site?
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act
as the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We
Sending to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With
Their Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a
jury to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask
the jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602.
Thus have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional
priorities and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you
may not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
| |
|
| Sorry Gaffo, wrong again...
Your define a Nazi as anyone that stands up for the rights of others,
instead of whining about it. The correct word for this definition for
the described action is a Patriotic American Veteran, none of which you
obviously are. Thus you must have failed your World War II history as
well. I guess you are so used to your own self worship that your own
continuous and obvious mistakes just fly around in the empty space
between your ears and is never comprehended by your walnut sized brain.
Probably due to your drug induced haze that you drifted through in
life, instead of actually learning something while you were in school.
In your twisted mind, there are no reasons for the use of force. This
is due to your isolated and narrow grasp of what truly occurs around
the world. In your arrogance, you do not see that the same freedoms you
are exercising daily, are deserved by all those that desire freedom as
well. You think that the US has no place in overthrowing evil in Iraq
and in giving these same freedoms to others on the planet that do not
have the strength to obtain it on their own. Most likely, this is due
to your lack of moral fiber that keeps you from a basic understanding
of principles. You ramble about 'puppet' governments, yet in Iraq more
people voted in this first election then in the US in the last 25
years. This is the first time, in over 50 years, that Iraq has a
government elected by its own people. Yet you can not allow yourself to
see the truth that this is real freedom in its most basic form. You
simply can not accept the fact that the Iraqi people want to be free,
to determine their own government and be free of violence and
dictators. You are to partisan to see the truth and to me again this is
not surprising at all. You reinforce this image of yourself every time
you post a message here.
Some day, if you live long enough, perhaps you will realize that your
arguments, based in cowardice, will not sway the evil forces on this
planet. But please do continue to worry about our countries 'soul'. Yes
that soul is in such jeopardy, considering in your mind this is the
first time we have used deadly force against terrorists. This is no
doubt to your ignorance of our true history, of our successful combat
throughout the entire life of this country, against similar evil
forces. But why would you want to learn from history? What could an
education possibly offer to someone like you, someone that ignores the
facts and then shouts out to the world about it?
But common sense will even come to someone such as you, someday.Wisdom
comes with age, but it is obvious by your sensationalism and foul
language against those that do not agree with your delusions, that you
have neither. But on that day, when you finally realize what a fool you
have been, it will most likely be the same day that one of these
terrorists are twisting a bayonet in your belly.
Until that time, please keep shouting, its fun to watch you make a fool
out of yourself through your own ignorance...
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
| L'acrobat 2005-06-11, 3:31 am |
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:zlsqe.3305$%j7.1829@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
>
>
>
> Law accompies a Due Process - somehting your henchmen don't seem to value.
>
> kill-em and let Gawd sort it out mentality.
>
You again have fallen back on pretending that you can read minds and have
set out on that basis, with no evidence and less subject matter knowledge,
to try to prove a point - it's why you keep losing these arguments and have
to fall back on shrill accusations of Nazism.
The due process is covered in the Geneva convention, the fact that YOU like
jury trials does not make it a legal or moral requirement.
quote:
>
> again, if you call that human decency - fine, just don't expect the
> majority of others to agree with you.
Ah, so you have become a self proclaimed majority now?
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> point to the part where a Trial is denied please.
>
>
> for this is what your henchmen are advicating.
it can be done by military tribunal, just like it was in 1942 in USA.
It isn't my job to spoon feed you the subject matter, if you want to
advocate a position, first educate yourself.
quote:
>
>
> --
>
> It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
> other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both
> objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it
> upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as well as the
> fact in controversy.
>
> Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Geneva Convention IV art 68.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
| |
| PAPADOC 2005-06-11, 3:31 am |
| Too cute...
quote:
>give Himmler my love
You act like you think you know something of Hitler.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>nothing is our fault - we immulate the President in all things.
hehe....Now your getting it. And yes this war is not our fault. Your
teenagerlike stomping of your diddle feet doesnt make it othewise.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>you lie. I will not miss you. Give Hess my regards.
>
Door, hit, XXX.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
>according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
>though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
>
>John Adams, 1771
hehe...The thugs in Gitmo arent criminals being brought to trial, they are
vermin being brought to heel. That they are not dead yet is our biggest
contribution to humanitarian ideal.
PAPADOC
My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html
| |
| Mitch_A 2005-06-11, 3:31 am |
| His problem is he is just part of the ponytail wearing bandwagon spewing
his nonsensical slogans and slapping each other on the XXX telling
themselves how great and smart they all are and how wrong and dumb everyone
else is.
"CAG" <CAG@forums.simradar.com> wrote in message
news:1118449307.22497@forums.simradar.com...
quote:
> gaffo,
>
> Its a shame your intellect doesn't match your big mouth. If you
> wouldn't be so lazy as to ask everyone else to do your own work to try
> to find the facts that you obviously don't have the capacity to find,
> you would see a simple google search of the accords would turn up the
> most recent amendments and protocols to the treaties concerning
> definitions and additional effects of more modern conventional weapons,
> thus altering the accords to increase the ban on specific weapons. This
> is where the international definition of terrorists was ratified and
> approved by all countries attending and the amendments agreed upon.
>
> Summary executions have been authorized by the current government in
> Iraq, but again you should have known this if you had done even the
> most basic of research.
>
> However, the fact that you have not done so is not surprising and
> simply strengthens my position. I suggest you do a bit more research
> before running off on your keyboard again, as I doubt you have room in
> your mouth for both your feet. However, I again will not be surprised
> to see you do so with extreme vigor, as its obvious with the language
> you use that an intelligent conversation is well beyond your
> capabilities.
>
> BTW you misspelled irrelevant...
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
> Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
| |
| L'acrobat 2005-06-11, 3:31 am |
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:vtsqe.2491$I14.1830@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> L'acrobat wrote:
>
>
>
>
> maybe you have forgotten the original post on this thread?
>
>
> "line them up and shoot them" to sum up.
>
"What are we going to do with them? Feed them lunch and release them?
At least we also captured their weapons with bombs, hideouts, etc.
M60 is anxious to speak to them. Attacks have dwindled- of course.
It could be a major victory, but it will be thrown away in the
rediculous and absurd.
Here is Bushs chance to show that he did not lie when he said he would
kill terrorists. I did not believe him when he said it and I challenge
him now to live up to his word.
There are many things that go thru my mind but the kindest treatment I
have come up with is to "rip their guts out"- some of my other thoughts
are too gruesome to mention."
Noting here says "just line them up and shoot them" - it talks about killing
TERRORISTS, a LEGAL definition, applied to those guilty of acts of terror
and hence executable under art 68 (as one example) as noted previously.
Perhaps if you try reading what people post, rather than what you wished
they had posted?
quote:
>
>
> Now - i ask again, site the Accord which grants the execution of
> surrenderess without Due Process.
art 68 and the laws of war both cover the execution of terrorists, are you
incapable of reading or just unwilling to read?
by definition a terrorist has already had his due process.
quote:
>
>
> for that is what your Henchmen buddies are advicating.
More mind reading?
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "better" is self evident to most.
>
and this is exactly what George Bernard Shaw was alluding to in Caesar and
Cleo, how the ignorant think their customs and beliefs are universal truths.
quote:
> If you are at a loss, you may need some help in ethics.
>
You have yet to show where an insistence that the Geneva Conventions and the
laws of war be followed through on lacks ethics, please attempt to do so.
also please show how your strident insistence that the US should abrogate
both the laws of war and the geneva conventions is ethical.
But lets talk ethics, I and countless other soldiers (I'm an ex soldier)
over the years put on uniforms partly as a way of painting a whacking great
bullseye on ourselves, thereby telling the enemy that they didn't have to
shoot every male and female of military age in the area to win a conflict
(that is why the laws of war allow execution of those who do not wear
uniform or recognisable insignia, because to reward that behaviour puts all
civilians into the crosshairs as potential targets).
What have you done that is more ethical than that?
It is amusing if nothing else to be lectured on military ethics by a child
(actual or ethical), who has no knowledge of the laws of war or the GC, has
no understanding of the practical implications of the GC and its application
and who advocates his country ignoring both the laws of war and the GC.
In fact, to use your own favoured analogy, it's like being lectured on
ethics by Rudolf Hess.
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> without Trial?
Correct, by military tribunal, as allowed under the GC - executed 6 of the
8.
quote:
>
> Herr Stockmen is advicating just such. Are you?
The GC allows it, I have no problem with it.
BTW, 'Stockmens' post doesn't say that, but lets run with it anyway.
quote:
>
>
>
> - FDR ordered all eight Nazi
>
>
>
>
> irrelivant - since Herr Stockmen did not advicate the execution 900 AFTER
> a trial.
>
>
it wasn't a trial, it was a military tribunal.
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> in this case? - I dont know. I'm not informed enough on the matter of
> these trials.
or much else, 20 mins with google would certainly help.
quote:
>
>
> Was he immoral in knwing about the genicide of the Jews and not releasing
> that information at large to teh public? yes!
>
Oh dear, trying to change the subject.
How would the public being told have saved a single Jew?
quote:
> was he immoral in locking up Japs in internment camps? yes!
>
At war and uncertain of the loyalties of the Japanese, interning them is not
immoral.
quote:
>
> ...............or are you a "moral relativist" - one without a moral
> center...........until it can be legalized and codified as "moral" by our
> appointed authorities?
>
>
Yawn, losing the argument so you try to change the subject.
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Clause that denies a Trail??...........site?
The GC allows for military tribunals, look it up - I'm not here to fix your
ignorance, you have to do that.
quote:
>
>
>
> --
> The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
> attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
> has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
> lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
> fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
> unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act as
> the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
> message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
> defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We Sending
> to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With Their
> Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
> The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a jury
> to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
> oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask the
> jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602. Thus
> have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional priorities
> and structure.
> One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
> jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you may
> not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
>
Convention IV art 68.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with
Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person
only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of
sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of
intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons,
provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the
occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
| |
| Jay Williams 2005-06-11, 8:32 pm |
|
<Stockman91790@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118186514.361323.238800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> Andrew MacPherson wrote:
>
> Do you have mind reading abilities? How do you know what my other
> thoughts are if I didn't tell you them?
circumstantial evidence based upon your last 200 posts.
| |
| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-06-11, 8:32 pm |
|
Jay Williams wrote:
quote:
> <Stockman91790@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118186514.361323.238800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> circumstantial evidence based upon your last 200 posts.
Sure, sure- but are you sure you don't mean DIRECT evidence instead?
Helping you to make someone elses point by you reading HIS mind?
By the way, I will take this oportunity to bring up a previous bone of
contention about state and federal rights.
Recently the US Supreme Court ruled that CA does not have the right to
rule that the Feds can not prosecute Maryjuana use and sale. As I have
said, Fed law overrules State law when in conflict. I can not think of
a more recent or clearer example of what I said- contrary to what you
said to me. How can I argue about law with an attorney with long
history of practice? The truth can do it for me.
I am flattered that you have taken the time to read 200 of my posts. I
must have said something that interested you worth your time.
Hint: a simple "you were correct" will suffice from you. For the rest,
can you also read my mind on what I am thinking your reply will be?
| |
|
| |