ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2007

RIP BRIAN JONES 1942 - 1969
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAŅOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: I Can't Gitmo (No No No Stones Content) Return to archive Page: 1 2
25th June 2007 11:39 AM
gimmekeef Careful....the Icelandic Fundamentalists are real bastards......
25th June 2007 11:39 AM
LadyJane
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
Hail Hail LJ...Amazing how we are expected to blindly follow the hardline..You know what?...fuck this....I'm tired of even trying to have a rational discussion with people that call others idiots beacuse they dare to question the mess we're in.....
[Edited by gimmekeef]



Thank you gimmekeef, but I must disagree to an extent.

I have had very civil political discussions with my good friend Nanky.

I trust when he has time, he will provide the rational explanation I have requested.

LJ.
25th June 2007 11:43 AM
nankerphelge My apologies for calling anyone loony.
You are all entitled to your opinions, even if I disagree with them.

As for research, you won't find the term "unlawful combatant" in the Geneva Convention.

The general rule is that if you are alligned with a foreign military, follow basic rules such as wearing identifying information/uniform, the Convention sets forth how prisoners of war are to be treated. The basic idea is that even for war, you can have rules so that people are not treated inhumanely once captured.

By signing onto the Geneva convention, you are in essence abiding by an international contract.

As for US citizens or those lawfully in the US, you get certain rights under the US COnstitution and other domestic laws.

The grey area are these terrorists -- mercenaries essentially -- that are not alligned with any county's military and who are waging war against us in one form or another.

When we capture them, what law applies?
If we do noy bring them to the US, then any US laws/Constitutional rights do not attach.

And since they do not fit the legal definition of a lawful combatant under any of the Geneva conventions, then what is their legal status.

Some people think that holding them indefinitely without charging them goes against some rule.
I'm not seeing it.
They chose to wage their war against the US in whatever form they selected.
We captured them.
What do we owe them at that point?


[Edited by nankerphelge]
25th June 2007 12:06 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:
LadyJane wrote:
Give me facts or direct me to links. I would like to research this matter.



http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/index.html
25th June 2007 12:07 PM
nankerphelge A link to the Washington Compost?

Yeah -- good researching.

No bias there...
25th June 2007 12:09 PM
LadyJane Thanks Nanky.

It IS a grey area, then. As far as the law is concerned.

I spent considerable time researching this issue on the web over the weekend and came up with nothing but right and left wing rhetoric.

LJ.



25th June 2007 12:10 PM
gimmekeef
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
My apologies for calling anyone loony.
You are all entitled to your opinions, even if I disagree with them.

As for research, you won't find the term "unlawful combatant" in the Geneva Convention.

The general rule is that if you are alligned with a foreign military, follow basic rules such as wearing identifying information/uniform, the Convention sets forth how prisoners of war are to be treated. The basic idea is that even for war, you can have rules so that people are not treated inhumanely once captured.

By signing onto the Geneva convention, you are in essence abiding by an international contract.

As for US citizens or those lawfully in the US, you get certain rights under the US COnstitution and other domestic laws.

The grey area are these terrorists -- mercenaries essentially -- that are not alligned with any county's military and who are waging war against us in one form or another.

When we capture them, what law applies?
If we do noy bring them to the US, then any US laws/Constitutional rights do not attach.

And since they do not fit the legal definition of a lawful combatant under any of the Geneva conventions, then what is their legal status.

Some people think that holding them indefinitely without charging them goes against some rule.
I'm not seeing it.
They chose to wage their war against the US in whatever form they selected.
We captured them.
What do we owe them at that point?


[Edited by nankerphelge]



I'm not against holding or prosecuting terrorists.But to answer the question about what to do with them The Supreme Court in large majorities (8-1 and 6-3) ruled that at a minimum these people have a right of appeal over their classification as combatants.With the imperfect record of so called intelligence I strongly suggest oversight of matters such as this should be mandatory.One of the difficulties in gaining world support for the fight I believe is the appearance of US disregard for issues such as this.If these detainess have committed crimes of terror lets tell the world what/where and whom and build a case for even more global prosecution...Personally I like our chances better in the open...
25th June 2007 12:16 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
A link to the Washington Compost?

Yeah -- good researching.

No bias there...



Dispute the facts. Research takes time. I could have posted something from Pat Buchanan, Front Page Magazine or WND I suppose.
25th June 2007 12:36 PM
BONOISLOVE Anything but, please, not ANOTHER George Bush ("jr." or "W." or whatever). They fucking stink!

His father ("George Bush") looks like a genius by comparison.

And, yeah, this is kinda funny:

25th June 2007 12:38 PM
MrPleasant You make Bono fart!
25th June 2007 12:39 PM
nankerphelge "I'm not against holding or prosecuting terrorists.But to answer the question about what to do with them The Supreme Court in large majorities (8-1 and 6-3) ruled that at a minimum these people have a right of appeal over their classification as combatants.With the imperfect record of so called intelligence I strongly suggest oversight of matters such as this should be mandatory.One of the difficulties in gaining world support for the fight I believe is the appearance of US disregard for issues such as this.If these detainess have committed crimes of terror lets tell the world what/where and whom and build a case for even more global prosecution...Personally I like our chances better in the open..."

Good points.
I have no problem with the Supreme's saying that these people have the right to contest their status as enemy combatants. I am not for rounding people up that are innocent -- and if the military is wrong in its classification, those detained should have that basic right.
But I don't agree with releasing people simply because we do not have enough evidence to withstand a trial in the US system. That would be insane!

25th June 2007 01:23 PM
gimmekeef We'll never solve this...and many have differences of opinion as to how to resolve this and other even more complex issues...Fuck it...theres a show in an hour...I'm headin over to that thread to kick back and relax....
25th June 2007 01:32 PM
Jumacfly
quote:
glencar wrote:

I will refrain from citing France in the future. Instead Iceland will substitute as I'm pretty sure no one from here lives there.




LOL Blue don't take it too hard I was just kidding
but thanks for the attention, now I can post in the Lisbon thread with serenity..


25th June 2007 01:32 PM
LadyJane
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
We'll never solve this...and many have differences of opinion as to how to resolve this and other even more complex issues...Fuck it...theres a show in an hour...I'm headin over to that thread to kick back and relax....



Agreed!!!!!
Pass the bong.
That'll solve everything.

LJ.
25th June 2007 01:55 PM
pdog Gitmo isn't the only prison in question. We are setting up "offshore prisons" the same way a corproration sets up an offshore acct. To be exempt from the law of the USA. I don't have a problem with that, unless you are hiding something. We don't know what is going on, who the prisoners are, we are told to just accept it... Just like Abu Graib, our service people are used by contractors, who use torture and are exmept from oversight. The real crime isn't the prisons or methods, it is the contracting out of our freedoms. Privitization of everything... Freedom once meant the rights of the individual, t persue happiness. Now it means the ability of a corproation to work outside of basic human morality. You can argue for or against Gitmo, the truth is, no one can really make a case, because it is a big secret of who is there and why... Argua about ghosts, while the real issue is overlooked... That outside of the day to day stuff, our miltary is just the gate keepers, privte companies specializing in torure are running it, and operating outside of the law and with zero accountabiltiy... But that's okay for some, b/c we know that these unknown prisoners are "bad people" b/c someone said so...
25th June 2007 07:26 PM
glencar
quote:
LadyJane wrote:
Thanks Nanky.

It IS a grey area, then. As far as the law is concerned.

I spent considerable time researching this issue on the web over the weekend and came up with nothing but right and left wing rhetoric.

LJ.





I myself have removed myself from the rhetoric as much as possible. No more Rush, no more Randi Rhodes, no more Nat'l Review et cetera for a while. I would hope that if Hillary Clinton were to be doing the same thing as POTUS, that both sides would render the same arguments but my fear is that the sides would (for the most part) flip.
Page: 1 2
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)