Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Qloos]

Explain your legal reasoning.

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Grave Breaches

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

    * willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
    * willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
    * compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
    * willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial.

News search "Omar Khadr" for the above breaches.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court effectively dared the Harper government to ignore its finding that Canada and the United States are violating Mr. Khadr's right to life, liberty and security under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Source:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/khadr-ruling-sees-top-court-clash-with-tories/article1450138/

I have nothing against going after terrorists, but this is a full blown call to arms with tanks and f16's and aircraft carriers.  When in reality it's the drones, the spies, the special forces who would really be deployed for an attack against terrorists cells.  To me it looks like intimidation.

[Luke_Prowler]

Every time, you guys, every single time.

[Jackrabbit]

I can't tell if you mean Armok or the thread.

[Strife26]

I prefer my IBC rootbeer, actually. Down to two bottles already though.

And in that case it was not the army as a whole, but a portion of it, and those involved were tried by their superiors.

More like they were chosen to take a fall - for - their superiors.

Watch "Taxi to the dark side" A documentary on Abu Ghraib.

Conspiracy theorists are a dime a dozen. It's depressingly rare knowledge that enhanced interogation isn't that good of a method of getting information. Plus, you have to remember the simple fact that torture DOES hurt America's cuase. You'd have to be an idiot not to realize that. Why would the entire military aparatus want something bad for itself? In any case, real conspiracies don't function that well in a media dominated society. In any case, insurgents don't actually qualify for protection under the conventions.

Answering a call to arms when your country and liberty is threatened is one thing, but I feel there is no real threat.  Only a hyped one.

Your not him, and you are judging him because he is doing something he thinks is right.

And if he is not right, then he is not noble, he is either brainwashed or ignorant or desperate for money (As Armok said).  I want an explanation as to what he is fighting for, how what he is fighting will preserve what he is fighting for and how far he plants to take this fight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks
I don't take kindly to murder of civilians. By non-uniformed non-governmental parties. Nor do I take a nice view of countries that harbor terrorist bastards. For all that though, smashing said country leaves America with some responsibility for fixing it and trying to ensure that it doesn't repeat, which I'd argue is happening right now.

Also, lol at people equating "joining the US military" with "defending your country"

the last time the US military defended the US was about 1863 ish

You say defending my country, I say that I defend my morals. If America decided to becomes an evil empire, would I consider myself an American (probably yes, I wouldn't consider said empire to be America)? If God told everyone to lay down and die cuz he's letting Satan kill them all, would I still worship that God?

The last time America defended basic freedom wasn't that long ago. You could argue about our current wars, but the Gulf War is unarguably defense of territorial sovereignty.

I don't like war, probably more because the resources wasted than the direct harm inflicted. The sufering from war is as far as I know negligible compared to disease, ageing, starvation, etc. But the money (or more accurately, the resources and labour those little pieces of paper or bits represent) could have been used to fight those greater evils.

Reasons for joining the military is being evil OR being stupid OR being brainwashed OR being desperate. Knowing Strife he's in the brainwashed category, and thus cannot be blamed any more than if someone had made bolts from his bones.

"Any soldier worth his salt is anti-war, yet there are some things worth fighting for."

In the abstract, war sucks. However, if America became isolationist again, can anyone claim that war would stop? I beleive that humanity is mostly, good, but there are always those who'd take what they want from the point of a gun. And for that, you need soldiers. Throughout history, America has always massively crippled her armies at the end of every war. Yet, there's always been another war to fight.


One could claim that I'm brainwashed, I'd say that I've made a decision. 'Brainwash' is an easy term to call someone who disagrees with you. People are brainwashed into thinking that armies are no longer needed and that there is no just war. Yet, isn't it more acurately to say that people have made decisions about war always being evil?
 

As for wanting to kill, man, that could fill a thread on it's lonesome. Suffice to say, I'd much rather have an army of people willing to kill for their country than an army of people willing to die for it.

Yes, that is more or less the point of having a military.  One might even call it a necessary evil!

I'd happily die for my country, but it'd probably more useful to kill for it, eh?

Remember who said the original Evil/Brainwashed/Desperate quote and it all makes a bit more sense.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight

Am I the blood knight? Probably. We could also list a few more, like Death Seeker, Martyr without a Cause, Honor Before Reason, and a few others. Of course my motto of it being better to burn out than to fade away could be another thread in its by itself.

When you join an armed force, you become as moral as the power controlling them.  As you have chosen to place faith in their marching orders.  If it is a rash choice out of financial desperation, only then, I might feel some sympathy as you enter the military.

Yes. I put my faith in the fact that America tries to act nobly. 




Well, there are a few responses.


6 new replies. I KNEW I should of locked this while I typed.
My country is my village, Armok. You've listed an arbitrary definition on what I can care for. The slaughter of civies would piss me off enough to go for war wherever it was.

Afghanistan was invaded becuase the Taliban was very open in allowing Al Queida to operate inside their borders. We've stopped them from operating there, now it's more of a matter of making sure they can't come back, and leaving the country stable.

Is a tyrannical and stable regime better than a free and open one? Especially when the open one, with time, will have a better standard of living for everyone involved?

3 new replies?
Damnit!

Explain your legal reasoning.

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Grave Breaches

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

    * willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
    * willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
    * compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
    * willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial.

News search "Omar Khadr" for the above breaches.

I have nothing against going after terrorists, but this is a full blown call to arms with tanks and f16's and aircraft carriers.  When in reality it's the drones, the spies, the special forces who would really be deployed for an attack against terrorists cells.  To me it looks like intimidation.

Non-governmentals who attack civvies get no protection from the Convention, whatsoever.

1 new reply
GAH!

[Creaca]

Conflict is the spice of life.

I mean, these forums would be pretty dull and bland if we universally agreed with each other.

[Qloos]

Non-governmentals who attack civvies get no protection from the Convention, whatsoever.

Omar Khadr was suspected of attacking U.S. troops when he was underage, not civilians.

Why would the entire military aparatus want something bad for itself?

I don't mean to say it was a deliberate act by any leader that specifically said "Go and torture."  It was a lack of guidelines being set down from the top, mixed with a large about of racism and seeing muslims as 'less than human.' 

[LegoLord]

Non-governmentals who attack civvies get no protection from the Convention, whatsoever.

Omar Khadr was suspected of attacking U.S. troops when he was underage, not civilians.

Why would the entire military aparatus want something bad for itself?

I don't mean to say it was a deliberate act by any leader that specifically said "Go and torture."  It was a lack of guidelines being set down from the top, mixed with a large about of racism and seeing muslims as 'less than human.' 

Is anyone saying torture is okay?  Is anyone saying some members of the military didn't make any questionable decisions?  No, but some are saying that we should ditch the military, despite history proving that's a bad idea, and will be for a long time.

[Cthulhu]

What we need right now is a war, and not this pussy "middle-eastern conflict" nonsense.  A real war.  US, UK, Germany, Canada, Australia, and maybe Russia against China, Iran, North Korea, and maybe Russia.  Nukes in the air, gasmasks, end of all things.  We Bay12ers form an underground shelter somewhere, probably deep in the heart of Texas where the stars at night are big and bright and the rocks are thick and non-porous.

After a few years we come out and remake the world in our image.

As for ditching the military, bag of money in one hand and beatan stick in the other.  That's how you diplomacize.  If you don't have the beatan stick, you're only half-diplomatic.

[Qloos]

Is anyone saying torture is okay?

Those statements were said in defense of basic human rights, not against joining a military.  I am convinced there is value to an army in dissuading other nations/groups from invading.  However, massive amounts of soldiers are not very effective in catching small and isolated terrorist groups.  For that you need intelligence/research and quick strike forces.

[Aqizzar]

The last time America defended basic freedom wasn't that long ago. You could argue about our current wars, but the Gulf War is unarguably defense of territorial sovereignty.

I could argue about it all day long.  That's my calling after all.  There are other instances in the same time period where the United States did not act as the military shield of a nation whose territorial sovereignty was destroyed.  The Great Lakes Wars in the Congo, Somalia and Ethiopia (a couple helicopter teams does not a military defense make), and any number of dustups in South America and Central Asia where no one really knows what the borders were.  Even Yugoslavia we had to be talked into.

In other words, when there's other occasions where a need to protect territorial sovereignty did not cause the U.S. to engage in a war, that means that wasn't the reason.  There were plenty of others, I'm sure you could name at least three.

Non-governmentals who attack civvies get no protection from the Convention, whatsoever.

This is simply not true.  I'm not even sure where to begin explaining this one, because I'm not sure what scenarios you have in mind.  Suffice to say, if and when you have a class on the legal Constitution, or the international rules of warfare, I really hope you pay attention.

[Leafsnail]

Not to mention that, without a fair trial, it may be impossible to tell if they were guilty of it at all...

[Creaca]

I don't mean to say it was a deliberate act by any leader that specifically said "Go and torture."  It was a lack of guidelines being set down from the top, mixed with a large about of racism and seeing muslims as 'less than human.'

Much in the same way civilian journalists where decapitated because of racism and seeing Americans as 'less than human'. I'm not justifying what those guys did, they where indeed some sick fucks. But Racism alone doesn't even come close as a reason a sane person would do what they did.

If anything was lacking it wasn't guidelines, it was supervision. You had some pissed soldiers holding prisoners, and they abused the power.

[Siquo]

The World is my village.

Now what are you to me if you, my village-neighbour, start killing my other village-neighbours? Nothing less, to be true, but nothing more either.

And Forumsdwarf, if 9/11/2001 is "back to the wall" to you... Really. Turn up the heat a bit, order in a pizza, grab yourself a sugary drink, turn on the tv, sit in your comfy chair and feel afraid and with your back to the wall.

[LegoLord]

For that you need intelligence/research and quick strike forces.

And that is, in fact, a lot of what's going on.  It's what my dad is mostly doing lately, though exactly what I couldn't say simply because I don't know.  We aren't doing mass deployment like in WWII.  When they talk about 1000s, those are small numbers compared to older wars.

I don't know about siquo, but if the world is my village, then those terrorist organizations are the gangs that serve only to plague it.

[Siquo]

I don't know about siquo, but if the world is my village, then those terrorist organizations are the gangs that serve only to plague it.

Al qaeda, US Army, Bloods, Crips. All the same, and all my brethren.

Also had to laugh at this:

If God told everyone to lay down and die cuz he's letting Satan kill them all, would I still worship that God?

Well, Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. That whole eye-for-an-eye thing is sooo Old testament. So I'm guessing you're not a Christian then, but the word "Satan" implies that you are. Strange. Jewish, perhaps?