Reply #101 January 13, 2005 9:08 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

The US does have a history of avoiding international obligations through either refusing to ratify treaties or through withdrawing from them completely. I don't see how you can contend this. 20th century history is littered with the relics of this kind of thing. The US is nearly always instrumental in drafting new international treaties, yet it is extremely reluctant to sign them. When it does so, there's always a way out, as happened in the '80s when the Nicaraguan government won a case against the US in the world court and the US simply withdrew from the treaty the court was based on. It's simply political reality, and I don't see any reason to deny that reality to save face.

No, unlike most of the nations on earth, we have laws.  Absolute laws.  Some would call them bad.  Some (perhaps many as they have been tried to be duplicated since we came up with them) would call them good. In the end, bad or good, you have to live by laws.  you do not like them? Then change them, dont break them.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make about this. Do you mean that nations shouldn't have to change their internal laws to better reflect international requirements? Do you mean that US law should only be changed by internal courts? Or that only legislators should change laws? I meant that the US was a 'playa' on the global scene, not that there should be no laws or that US law is entirely inadequate (even though it has serious weaknesses regarding copyright and frivolous lawsuits).

Can you please explain to me, the hard of thinking, exactly what you mean with this?

Reply #102 January 13, 2005 11:08 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

post deleted

Reply #103 January 14, 2005 12:28 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #101 By: cactoblasta - 1/13/2005 9:08:49 PM The US does have a history of avoiding international obligations through either refusing to ratify treaties or through withdrawing from them completely. I don't see how you can contend this. 20th century history is littered with the relics of this kind of thing. The US is nearly always instrumental in drafting new international treaties, yet it is extremely reluctant to sign them. When it does so, there's always a way out, as happened in the '80s when the Nicaraguan government won a case against the US in the world court and the US simply withdrew from the treaty the court was based on. It's simply political reality, and I don't see any reason to deny that reality to save face. No, unlike most of the nations on earth, we have laws. Absolute laws. Some would call them bad. Some (perhaps many as they have been tried to be duplicated since we came up with them) would call them good. In the end, bad or good, you have to live by laws. you do not like them? Then change them, dont break them. I have no idea what point you're trying to make about this. Do you mean that nations shouldn't have to change their internal laws to better reflect international requirements? Do you mean that US law should only be changed by internal courts? Or that only legislators should change laws? I meant that the US was a 'playa' on the global scene, not that there should be no laws or that US law is entirely inadequate (even though it has serious weaknesses regarding copyright and frivolous lawsuits). Can you please explain to me, the hard of thinking, exactly what you mean with this?

Go back and reread post #96.

Do you mean that nations shouldn't have to change their internal laws to better reflect international requirements?

No they should not have to. Because then that lets *other* people dictate american laws, and that's BS.

Reply #104 January 14, 2005 12:47 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Go back and reread post #96

Unfortunately this sheds no light either. So what if the US has ratified every single treaty it's signed save the 77 accords? It's still dropped out of them or refused to join up to others to avoid political difficulties. I suppose I shall have to live in ignorance of the hidden truth.

No they should not have to. Because then that lets *other* people dictate american laws, and that's BS.

I was hoping to figure out the intent of the post with this, not make a statement about how things should be. But surely if the US signs and ratifies a treaty it has a responsibility to make that treaty a part of its legislation? Or is that misguided rather than logical?

Reply #105 January 14, 2005 1:10 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #102 By: Rightwinger - 1/13/2005 11:09:35 PM post deleted

what? and why? huh! explain
please

Reply #106 January 14, 2005 1:12 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #104 By: cactoblasta - 1/14/2005 12:47:02 AM

You still have not answere my questions and since this IS MY BLOG ya owe me that much cacto...

Why do you hate america so much?

Reply #107 January 14, 2005 2:25 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't hate America. I just see no reason to look at the world as if it's some happy-happy joy-joy land, full of peace and love on one side and unspeakable evil on the other. Life's not a fairy tale, and I don't think I'll ever be able to bring myself to think of it in those terms. A lot of the things Americans do I support. A lot of the things Americans do I don't support. It's simply reality that most of the things I support are never debated. It's always the dubious and the doubtful that is debated, and so you get the limited view of me that you do.

For example I defended the US' initial contribution to the tsunami effort as reasonable and appropriate, despite the lambasting the monetary portion of that aid received. I also respect the efforts of men like Martin Luther King, whose efforts were so indirectly influential in ending the White Australia Policy.

It is true that I hate modern American foreign policy. But I also think there's more to America and Americans than George Bush and his comedy of errors. Perhaps you're right though, and America is nothing more than a foreign policy juggernaught. But I'd like to think it consists of people too, and if I'm wrong, well, I guess that's just something I'll have to face when the CIA knocks on my door. Until then, I'd rather be positive about Americans and negative about their choice in government if it's all the same to you.

Reply #108 January 14, 2005 5:59 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

The US is free to implement whatever laws it desires, but these laws only apply to the US. Internationally accepted laws on human rights (whether the US ratified them or not) apply for the rest of the planet. Therefore, should the US want to torture it's citizens or terrorists captured for offenses on US soil then it can do so. They cannot however treat terrorists abroard with the same attitude. So terrorists captured in Iraq or in Afganistan come under the international laws and are such protected from the sorts of torture the US wants to use. This is the problemt eh US currently has with Iraq an Afganistan. Whatever sorts of human rights abuse the US has a right to inflict at home, they don't have this right in Abu Gharib or prisoners captured in Afganistan. These are human rights violations.

It's sad to realise how far the US has fallen. Just yesterday Human Rights Watch released their annual report concluding that the US 'erodes' global human rights and that they no longer have any moral high ground on this issue.

Paul.

Reply #109 January 14, 2005 8:42 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #104 By: cactoblasta - 1/14/2005 12:47:02 AM Go back and reread post #96 Unfortunately this sheds no light either. So what if the US has ratified every single treaty it's signed save the 77 accords? It's still dropped out of them or refused to join up to others to avoid political difficulties

Prove it!!! And do so with backup material or clam up.

Reply #110 January 14, 2005 8:44 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #104 By: cactoblasta - 1/14/2005 12:47:02 AM I was hoping to figure out the intent of the post with this, not make a statement about how things should be. But surely if the US signs and ratifies a treaty it has a responsibility to make that treaty a part of its legislation? Or is that misguided rather than logical?

Just because we sign and ratify a treaty does NOT mean it should become US law.

Reply #111 January 14, 2005 8:51 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Prove it!!! And do so with backup material or clam up.

What level of evidence would you accept? I can name some incidents if you like or point to some specific books/articles if you prefer. Really it's up to you, although the more limited your access to materials the lower the quality of the evidence I can provide. I'd rather not give internet links due to their dubious reliability, but I'm sure they're out there.

Just because we sign and ratify a treaty does NOT mean it should become US law.

Why would you sign it then? Are all treaties just cynical marketing exercises? Look kiddies, we've signed an ICBM treaty - but we're not going to do anything about it! Surely that's a little too cynical even for you, doctor. If the US doesn't agree with the principles of the treaty, and doesn't consider it worthy of being law, surely it should choose not to become a signatory at all.

Reply #112 January 14, 2005 8:53 AM from PolMach Forums Top

For those to lazy to look it up. Here are the Geneva convention definition of a POW. I've read it 5 times and Al-Quada and these terrorists don't adhere to the regulations defining what a POW is.

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.

Reply #113 January 14, 2005 11:30 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: cactoblastaPosted: Friday, January 14, 2005I don't hate America. I just see no reason to look at the world as if it's some happy-happy joy-joy land, full of peace and love on one side and unspeakable evil on the other. Life's not a fairy tale, and I don't think I'll ever be able to bring myself to think of it in those terms. A lot of the things Americans do I support. A lot of the things Americans do I don't support. It's simply reality that most of the things I support are never debated. It's always the dubious and the doubtful that is debated, and so you get the limited view of me that you do.

thank you for answereing.

Reply #114 January 14, 2005 11:32 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: kelpiejethroPosted: Friday, January 14, 2005For those to lazy to look it up. Here are the Geneva convention definition of a POW. I've read it 5 times and Al-Quada and these terrorists don't adhere to the regulations defining what a POW is.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.

THANK YOU!!! thats exactly what I have been saying, and saying and saying,,, and get these ridiculas answeres like "were better than that" or "do we want to be like them"

The terror mongors play by no rules. neither shoud we..

Reply #115 January 14, 2005 11:35 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: cactoblastaPosted: Friday, January 14, 2005

It is true that I hate modern American foreign policy. But I also think there's more to America and Americans than George Bush and his comedy of errors. Perhaps you're right though, and America is nothing more than a foreign policy juggernaught. But I'd like to think it consists of people too, and if I'm wrong, well, I guess that's just something I'll have to face when the CIA knocks on my door. Until then, I'd rather be positive about Americans and negative about their choice in government if it's all the same to

ok then.. but I must ask this then. WHAT IF the terrorist blew up sydney..... I mean the whole city or let loose a biological weapon, what would you have you gov do ?

Reply #116 January 14, 2005 12:05 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

kelpiejethro,
if you read the earlier replies to this article you'll see that the original Geneva conventions failed to include a number of categories of humans. Spies, special forces, terrorists, non nation combatants, and even children were not properly defined or covered. In later decades these loopholes were closed through further protocols to the Geneva conventions. All of these protocols have reached quorate and are hence internationally accepted treaties, but some of them have not been ratified by the US (though they were signed by and primarily written by the US). In particular is the protocol which deals with enemies who do not wear insignia of who are not claimed as pows by any recognised nation. Some claim that as the US has not signed this it can do what it wants with such people. Others (including myself) argue that the US must adhere to international law in international locations, and that failing to treat prisoners captured in Iraq or Afganistan by the international acceptable human right laws is wrong.

The US supreme court ruled US Guantanemo bay legislation illegal in two key areas so far. Firstly it insisted that no location can be outside the rule of law and therefore detainees in Guantanemo must be granted legal protection in the US and secondly that all prisoners must have their legal status determined by a neutral court. So the current situation of the US pretending that enemy combatants are not pows, but are not legal prisoners either is illegal, as defined by the US supreme court itself. One or the other is required and hence protected by the laws governing one or the other.

Paul.

Reply #117 January 14, 2005 12:18 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #108 By: Solitair - 1/14/2005 5:59:08 AM The US is free to implement whatever laws it desires, but these laws only apply to the US. Internationally accepted laws on human rights (whether the US ratified them or not) apply for the rest of the planet. Therefore, should the US want to torture it's citizens or terrorists captured for offenses on US soil then it can do so. They cannot however treat terrorists abroard with the same attitude. So terrorists captured in Iraq or in Afganistan come under the international laws and are such protected from the sorts of torture the US wants to use. This is the problemt eh US currently has with Iraq an Afganistan. Whatever sorts of human rights abuse the US has a right to inflict at home, they don't have this right in Abu Gharib or prisoners captured in Afganistan. These are human rights violations. It's sad to realise how far the US has fallen. Just yesterday Human Rights Watch released their annual report concluding that the US 'erodes' global human rights and that they no longer have any moral high ground on this issue. Paul.

good , then if the united states are viewed as such monsters... we should go all the way and torture the shit outta terroist, till they give up everyone. The u.s is a great country and no matter what we do the rest of a jealous world condems us... just be glad moderateman is not president because I would give the bleeders worldwide something to bleed about.. my nick name would be PRESIDENT NUKEM

Reply #118 January 14, 2005 12:21 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #111 By: cactoblasta - 1/14/2005 8:51:31 AM Prove it!!! And do so with backup material or clam up. What level of evidence would you accept? I can name some incidents if you like or point to some specific books/articles if you prefer. Really it's up to you, although the more limited your access to materials the lower the quality of the evidence I can provide. I'd rather not give internet links due to their dubious reliability, but I'm sure they're out there. Just because we sign and ratify a treaty does NOT mean it should become US law. Why would you sign it then? Are all treaties just cynical marketing exercises? Look kiddies, we've signed an ICBM treaty - but we're not going to do anything about it! Surely that's a little too cynical even for you, doctor. If the US doesn't agree with the principles of the treaty, and doesn't consider it worthy of being law, surely it should choose not to become a signatory at all.

International treaties should not have a bearing on a countries internal laws!

Reply #119 January 14, 2005 12:24 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

International treaties should not have a bearing on a countries internal laws!

So what should they have an effect on?

The United States is one of the worst countries in this regard: It makes laws, but feels it has the right to break them. I would personally like to see some convictions in the Hauge for war crimes against the US soldiers who broke international law.

Reply #120 January 14, 2005 12:26 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #116 By: Solitair - 1/14/2005 12:07:36 PM kelpiejethro, if you read the earlier replies to this article you'll see that the original Geneva conventions failed to include a number of categories of humans. Spies, special forces, terrorists, non nation combatants, and even children were not properly defined or covered. In later decades these loopholes were closed through further protocols to the Geneva conventions. All of these protocols have reached quorate and are hence internationally accepted treaties, but some of them have not been ratified by the US (though they were signed by and primarily written by the US).

If your going to quote fact at least use the correct ones.
1.) ALL accords were written in Sweden NOT the US! Hence the name *Geneva* accords.
2.)ALL accords were ratified by the US *except* the 77 accords!

Reply #121 January 14, 2005 12:28 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #119 By: sandy2 - 1/14/2005 12:24:05 PM International treaties should not have a bearing on a countries internal laws! So what should they have an effect on? The United States is one of the worst countries in this regard: It makes laws, but feels it has the right to break them. I would personally like to see some convictions in the Hauge for war crimes against the US soldiers who broke international law.

1.) Ain't happening!
2.) You seem to be overflowing with excrement!

Reply #122 January 14, 2005 12:33 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

1.) ALL accords were written in Sweden NOT the US! Hence the name *Geneva* accords.

First, you are either carless, dumb or uneducated.
Geneva is in Switzerland. Second, they were written not by switzerland but rather in switzerland by many countries, but mostly the USA.

Reply #123 January 14, 2005 12:48 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #122 By: sandy2 - 1/14/2005 12:33:06 PM 1.) ALL accords were written in Sweden NOT the US! Hence the name *Geneva* accords. First, you are either carless, dumb or uneducated.

Careless, unlike yourself. And GET IT RIGHT! I never claimed they were written by anyone set of people only where. Just an FYI, while the US was involved in the accords we were NOT the main architect of the accords!

Reply #124 January 14, 2005 1:29 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #119 By: sandy2 - 1/14/2005 12:24:05 PM International treaties should not have a bearing on a countries internal laws! So what should they have an effect on? The United States is one of the worst countries in this regard: It makes laws, but feels it has the right to break them. I would personally like to see some convictions in the Hauge for war crimes against the US soldiers who broke international law.

I am sure you would jump with joy if a couple u.s. personal were put to death too... btw are you an american ?

Reply #125 January 14, 2005 1:30 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #122 By: sandy2 - 1/14/2005 12:33:06 PM 1.) ALL accords were written in Sweden NOT the US! Hence the name *Geneva* accords. First, you are either carless, dumb or uneducated. Geneva is in Switzerland. Second, they were written not by switzerland but rather in switzerland by many countries, but mostly the USA.

now now!!! personal attacks are not allowed.