I have yet to knowingly bring in an un-signed (US) accord without identifying it as such. As to releasing documents....
it is well within the Presidents right to declassify. As to nation state status.... in the accords this is addressed... the individual party is considered covered by the accords IF the NATION he is FROM is a signatory. As to the Constitution.... Your Government has every right to protect, defend, common good and all of that stuff WITHIN YOUR BORDERS, key word defend. I can see NO problem with severe limitations being put on Muslim travel to or from your country as a protect etc. limitation certainly would apply given the present circumstances. I do have a problem when troops are EXPORTED to wage an aggressive or "preemptive" war. No where in any document that has not been discounted by the administration or high officers of a US administration does it give the government OFFENSIVE rights. But then your constitution in the very words of those same high officials is "Just a piece of paper". The world would certainly have been served (as well as the extraordinary peole of the US...You included) had severe charges been brought for that offense. The man had taken an oath. The accords were never meant to be taken apart line by line as is done in American Jurisprudence, they were meant to be viewed as a whole with alternate definitions that are littered throughout but that leave no doubt that they are interlocked in meaning. As you well know... dissemination of any treatise and the definition of terms held within can and do cause great and irreparable harm to the very intention of the document as a whole. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > Mark, > > I am only replying to this message, (right now) the other messages require > more detailed explanation and response. > > I don't use the United States Constitution for any other purpose, than to > express and demonstrate what our elected leaders have an obligation to do, > as they swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution. To have done any differently > than what we have seen, as per the wrongfully released and poltically > motivated release of the recent CIA Memoranda has demonstrated and attested > to, would have been unconstitutional, period. > > Mark, you and others keep forgetting that we were (and are) at war with a > group of individuals who claim no sovereign Nation-State. By yours and > others standards, (as I pointed out in another thread) President Truman > could not have given orders to have dropped the bomb on Nagasaki or > Hiroshima, which clearly saved American lives. > > In general, I don't think that we are in violation of these Geneva Accord > tenets. It is ridiculous to try and bring up conventions that we are not a > signatory to, like the 1998 Rome Treaty, which both the Clinton White House > and the Republican controlled Congress were opposed to. > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Keith, >> >> The US Constitution does NOT extend beyond US soil. Please don't try >> to use it on foreign soil, they have their own LEGAL document there. >> >> On Apr 24, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Good Morning Mark! >> > >> > You just answered your own question. >> > >> > The twenty eight detainees were not prisoners of war, in the sense of a >> foot >> > soldier, as the clause you are referencing is referring to. These >> > individuals where enhanced interrogation tactics were utilized, (and no, >> I >> > do not believe that the enhanced interrogation tactics resulted in >> torture, >> > I don't think anyone in good conscience can believe that if they read >> the >> > Memoranda) were homicidal murderers intent on killing Americans. >> > >> > Further, out of the over nine hundred that were captured and detained, >> based >> > on the information that has been released to date, only 28 of them were >> > exposed to any coercive interrogation tactics in order to obtain >> > information. The remaining nine hundred plus, were treated no >> differently >> > than any other American prisoner in the federal Bureau of Prisons' >> system, >> > as can be witnessed at both Baghdad Central Prison and Guantanamo. >> > >> > Folks keep forgetting the era also. At the time that these enhanced >> > interrogation tactics were being utilized, on the twenty eight that are >> > being referenced, our intelligence departments literally did not know >> who, >> > or what we were dealing with, and especially where or when the next wave >> of >> > attacks were coming. All Americans were fearful of dirty bombs, >> chemical >> > attacks, or planes being flown into our skyscrapers. It wasn't a >> question >> > of "if" but a question of "when". Our federal government by the >> mandate of >> > the United States Constitution, has a duty to "insure domestic >> tranquilty, >> > provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare..." >> > >> > Had the Bush Administration failed to have done as much as they did, we >> very >> > well might not be having this converstaion right now. >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE < >> [email protected]>wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Keith, >> > >> > > How is this for Myth ?? >> > >> > > QUOTE<<<<No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of >> > > coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them >> > > information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to >> > > answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant >> > > or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.>>>>>UNQUOTE Part III : >> > > Captivity #Section I : Beginning of captivity ARTICLE 17 >> > >> > > Now we are back to discussing the POW definition. The law is VERY >> > > specific. NEXT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> > >> > > On Apr 23, 8:20 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > Waterboarding as it was applied to THE THREE HOMICIDAL MURDERERS >> THAT >> > > WERE >> > > > ATTEMPTING TO KILL YOU was not specifically against any >> international law >> > > or >> > > > treatise that the United States was a signatory. >> > >> > > > Waterboarding as we applied it, was not torture! >> > >> > > > MoonbatMyths!!!! >> > >> > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM, studio <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > On Apr 22, 10:21 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > > I think a better way of framing your question Studio, is, "That >> if >> > > the >> > > > > > enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding is 'torture', >> then >> > > how >> > > > > > does one survive the procedure after 183 times?" >> > >> > > > > I don't know, let's try it on you to make sure. >> > >> > > > > The fact is the US was a International signatory against torture, >> > > > > which also >> > > > > includes water boarding. >> > > > > It was and is against the law, period. >> > >> > > > > It's really nice how you conservative moralists love telling >> everyone >> > > > > how >> > > > > moral and effective torture is. >> > >> > > > > INTERROGATOR: >> > > > > Have you been ripping the American people off for the last eight >> > > > > years? >> > >> > > > > BUSH - CHENEY: >> > > > > No, we were protecting... >> > >> > > > > INTERROGATOR: >> > > > > Fill 'em up boys, they'll tell us what we want to hear even if it >> > > > > takes 183 times.- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
