Should Bush grant himself IMMUNITY from WAR CRIMES? - Page 3

Okamifujutsu · #21 (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

( a ) During each military engagement, and

( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

For someone who's been proving wrong about everything so far, you're pretty arrogent.

eleanoraquitaine · #22 (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 06:48 PM

Now, we finally get to your case. No, it does not afford protections to people who intentionally violate the convention who have not signed on. Read it again. They must make the fact that they are a soldier apparent to the best of their ability. Clearly, the terrorists do not do so, at least in every case which would then mean you will have to prove exact situations where the enemy combatant did in fact make their status as a soldier apparent to the best of their ability and you would need to prove that torture was used on that person. And, of course thats not even going in to debating what is and isn't torture.

MasTequila · #23 (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolosophy

Not only that, President Bush also made the legisaltion retroactive which will mean that this immunity from prosecution will be back dated to September 11 2001.

We know that the War Crimes Act in the USA makes it a felony offence to contravene the Geneva Conventions.

What is Bush afraid of?

I thought that GOD tells him what to do. I thought that GOD told him to invade Iraq. I thought that Bush's military actions were based on moral grounds - GOOD vs EVIL.

If God tells him to grant himself immunity, I bet he will.

Okamifujutsu · #24 (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eleanoraquitaine

Now, we finally get to your case. No, it does not afford protections to people who intentionally violate the convention who have not signed on. Read it again. They must make the fact that they are a soldier apparent to the best of their ability. Clearly, the terrorists do not do so, at least in every case which would then mean you will have to prove exact situations where the enemy combatant did in fact make their status as a soldier apparent to the best of their ability and you would need to prove that torture was used on that person. And, of course thats not even going in to debating what is and isn't torture.

Read paragraph 4 again. I'm done arguing this with you. If you want to pretend federal and international law doesn't exist, that's up to you.

eleanoraquitaine · #25 (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 09:24 PM

Well, you failed to make your case. The law you cite requires the enemy combatant to identify themselves as a soldier to the best of their ability, which the terrorists do not do. They are therefore in violation and the entire document is irrelevant. If you wish to give up on your argument, I understand.

Okamifujutsu · #26 (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okamifujutsu

Read paragraph 4 again. I'm done arguing this with you. If you want to pretend federal and international law doesn't exist, that's up to you.

..........

Makedde · #27 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okamifujutsu

I've heard of it in passing. Appearantly Bush tried to pass some legislation giving himself and his administration immunity for anything they might have done that was illegal. I don't really know any details, but it was typical Bush asshattery.

If he did try to pass legislation, it proves that he was aware he may have actually done something illegal. If this is the case, he should have the guts to stand up and admit it.

Foolosophy · #28 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

If he did try to pass legislation, it proves that he was aware he may have actually done something illegal. If this is the case, he should have the guts to stand up and admit it.

You guys still dont fully comprehend the implications of Bush pushing this legislation through Congress.

The protection from criminal charges is quite specific. It provides immunity for the President and the members of his party that have issued orders that contravene the Genena Conventions.

So if anyone in the US public or people and groups not covered by the Congress legislation decided to carry out their own actions that contravened the Geneva Conventions they would be prosecuted under the War crimes act (1966).

So this legislation is just a nice cosy little bit of fascist amendment that will allow a war criminal like George Bush and his henchmen to walk out of Washington without facing the criminal legal charges that should be brought agianst them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

TheChief · #29 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolosophy

GOD BLESS AMERICA

The only part of that post that make sense.

Foolosophy · #30 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheChief

The only part of that post that make sense.

Does it make sense to you that Bush or Cheney etc can walk away from any presecution?

Does it make any sense to you that if YOU where involved in similar violations of the War Crimes Act (1966) YOU will be presecuted and most likely get a life time jail sentense OR even executed depending on what you've done and which US state imposes a penalty for you war crimes.

Remember George Bush is a US citizen first - Like all the other US citizens.

Maybe Congress can pass legislation that protects CEO's of big corporations from presecution for murder or environmental damage?

You obviously believe that citizens rights and obligations dont apply to everyone equally.

Then again its not surprising becasue the USA is NOT a democracy, Its an Oligarchy. So this is what you get in UNdemocratic societies.

GOD

BLESS

AMERICA

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Obama AG To Review Potential Bush ‘Crimes’	SweetnessBlog	Political Blogs	0	04-14-2008 08:40 PM
Palestinian Arab War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity	concheet	Middle East	7	01-28-2008 12:59 PM
Major General U. S. Grant	barney-fife	Current Events	44	06-09-2007 08:58 AM
The Bush Regime's War Crimes Dodge	Cato	United States	4	07-31-2006 04:36 PM
Is Bush the Lame Indictable For War Crimes?	apotropoxy	Law & Justice	6	07-04-2006 01:06 PM