Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

rmnunez · Nov 29, 2005, 02:38 pm

The German Chancellor will shortly meet with Bush. She is expected to explicitly outline the EU's position on the growing controversy over these "secret jails" and movements of captive suspected terrorists across recently integrated ex-Soviet satellites. The EU's main members have suggested an interruption in the integration process of newly admitted members who are shown to have assisted in any illegality.

tinybear · Nov 30, 2005, 03:38 am

Quote:

Quote by: Pooeypants

Do you realise how many years Maggie Thatcher was in power for?

Maggie was prettier than Merk. You gotta admit. :)

Nono · Nov 30, 2005, 05:59 am

tiny, you believe everything you see, and more the pity for you. Thatcher was all dolled up (and had her hectoring voice changed) by Saatchi & Saatchi. Tis all smoke and mirrors.

I abhor her policies, but Merkel's the real thing. You naturally chose the worst photo you could find, but I think she has a very sweet smile.

Also, your effing photos are derailing this thread!

tinybear · Nov 30, 2005, 08:55 am

Sorry about that, but, hey, your comment "What?! Thatcher was a woman? I thought she was Mussolini in drag" was what prompted me to post her picture so that everyone can judge whether she looks like Mussolini.

Nono · Nov 30, 2005, 11:39 am

Yeah, it was a spontaneous utterance of astonishment, unlike the time you must spend hunting up these completely irrelevant pics, you ursine troll you.

tinybear · Nov 30, 2005, 12:38 pm

It was a spontaneous hunt. Honest.

**Matt W** · Nov 30, 2005, 02:54 pm

Tb, this is not a chat room, no matter how many times you try and make it into one. Contribute something other than off-topic one-liners and/or images.

rmnunez · Dec 7, 2005, 02:34 pm

CIA Affair: Chancellor Merkel angers the USA" headlined the Berliner Morgenpost.

Quote:

While Merkel told reporters Washington had acknowledged it made a mistake in detaining him, a senior U.S. official said Rice had said no such thing. "We are not quite sure what was in her head," he said, referring to Merkel. German media seized on the embarrassing contradiction. The Financial Times Deutschland said: "Not only is there no apology, but even the word 'mistake' is too much for the United States when it comes to a concrete case."
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...SRI.xml&rpc=22

If there was a mistake in the matter of this "German" citizen, would the implication be there could be others? If so, would it be suggested "some", "several", "many" or even "most" terrorist suspects really aren't? I get the impression many think lots of innocent people are somehow getting railroaded in US efforts to track down and erradicate terrorists. I think the nature of terrorism makes its practitioners difficult to track down. I'd expect there must be some innocents among the suspects, but wouldn't guess they were the majority.

I do see a problem in the expectation of something close to absolute certainty about a suspect's wrongdoing in a terrorism case. I'd resolve this appending a conspiracy charge. Conspiracy is an ambiguous crime where a single step in its furtherance constitutes sufficient an element to show the crime (when coupled with the requisite intent). This would make prosecution easier. Give the suspects jail for a few years and then evaluate the risk they continue to pose as ties with co-conspirators chill.

Nono · Dec 7, 2005, 03:12 pm

Well, rum, that's what the critics have been demanding: due process -- if there's a case against them, bring them to trial. But that isn't how the US has been doing it.
It started by violating the Third Geneva Convention, now it's violating basic principles of habeas corpus.

rmnunez · Dec 7, 2005, 04:49 pm

Nono, in my view certain crimes requires different procedures which can impinge on some due process safeguards. This is common sense and we accept it in cases involving sexual abuse when witnesses can testify without cross-examination (for example). In a terrorism case I'd anticipate a number of problematic areas; admissibility of evidence obtained abroad and the weight given thereto stands out. Given the risks associated with terrorism, strict compliance with criminal procedure minutiae would be ill-advised. The last thing any court wants now is to mistakenly err on the side of caution because this would likely mean lots of innocent people would suddenly die.

Nono · Dec 7, 2005, 05:40 pm

But that doesn't mean chucking due process right out the window, as has been done with the ahh.. "illegal combatants" in Guantanamo Bay, for example.

Thing is, reasonable safeguards are one thing. Saying "you'll stay locked up until it damn well suits us to let you go" is another.

And never forget the enormous damage that this -- like the torture revelations -- has done to the reputation of the US. This hugely important fact never crosses the bushistas' wee minds.

Anyway, we're pretty far off topic here, which I believe was the fortunes of Frau Bundeskanzlerin Merkel.

shield772 · Dec 7, 2005, 08:06 pm

Why do you feel the persons in cuba being non US citizens that were captured fughting US soldiers on foreign soil should have US and Constitutional protections extended to them

Nono · Dec 7, 2005, 08:46 pm

Who says I do? I was talking about the Geneva Conventions, which the US has been violating in this respect for the past four years. I mean, if you don't plan to meet your obligations under those Conventions, you should renounce them like big boys and girls, instead of trying to have it both ways.

shield772 · Dec 7, 2005, 08:53 pm

Ok I am reading the conventions and I see where violations have happened but they were not supported by the administration, the violators in our military have and are being tried for their actions. Now in saying that it's a big document and am still reading and have not seen any provision yet that calls for speedy trials and the such, so if it's there bear with me I'll get there unless you can tell me where to look and I can get there faster.

Nono · Dec 7, 2005, 09:41 pm

OK, shield, go to the Third Geneva Convention (the one on treatment of prisoners of war) and have a gander at Article 5. It says:

Quote:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

This means that if you think they don't fit the category of POW, you have to put them before a "competent tribunal" (a court) to decide the matter. Failure to do this is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. This failure did not occur unbeknownst to your government, it occurred on the orders of Donald Rumsfeld and his boss George Wanker Bush.

That's agains the law. Shame!

shield772 · Dec 7, 2005, 09:52 pm

Ok but does it give a timeline for these tribunal?

Nono · Dec 7, 2005, 10:00 pm

I refer you to the Commentary on the Third GC, which goes into great detail.
Unfortunately it isn't online.

But whaddya think, shield, that it says "Don't worry, make 'em sweat for 50 years or so?" You trying to get Rummie off on a technicality here? Obviously the US is obliged to do it as soon as they can get the individual in front of a court.

And guess what, shield, the US Supreme Court agrees, and so instructed the Bush government two years ago. But Bush has simply ignored the Supreme Court.

That isn't rule of law. That's a banana republic y'all livin in.

shield772 · Dec 7, 2005, 10:15 pm

Part I : General provisions
ARTICLE 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/3...8?OpenDocument

shield772 · Dec 7, 2005, 10:32 pm

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebList?...m&id=375&t=com

This is the comentary on the third Convention

shield772 · Dec 7, 2005, 10:40 pm

I am unable to find anything in any of the Geneva Conventions anything that says how long they can be held or that while being held they have to be given trials unless they commit a crime while being detained, as long as we are recognizing them as enemy combatants and giving them proper treatment under the conventions I see no violations of any laws or conventions.

Nov 29, 2005, 02:38 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	The German Chancellor will shortly meet with Bush. She is expected to explicitly outline the EU's position on the growing controversy over these "secret jails" and movements of captive suspected terrorists across recently integrated ex-Soviet satellites. The EU's main members have suggested an interruption in the integration process of newly admitted members who are shown to have assisted in any illegality. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Nov 30, 2005, 05:59 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,321	tiny, you believe everything you see, and more the pity for you. Thatcher was all dolled up (and had her hectoring voice changed) by Saatchi & Saatchi. Tis all smoke and mirrors. I abhor her policies, but Merkel's the real thing. You naturally chose the worst photo you could find, but I think she has a very sweet smile. Also, your effing photos are derailing this thread! "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Nov 30, 2005, 11:39 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,321	Yeah, it was a spontaneous utterance of astonishment, unlike the time you must spend hunting up these completely irrelevant pics, you ursine troll you. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Nov 30, 2005, 02:54 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 7,107	Tb, this is not a chat room, no matter how many times you try and make it into one. Contribute something other than off-topic one-liners and/or images. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Dec 7, 2005, 03:12 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,321	Well, rum, that's what the critics have been demanding: due process -- if there's a case against them, bring them to trial. But that isn't how the US has been doing it. It started by violating the Third Geneva Convention, now it's violating basic principles of habeas corpus. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Nov 30, 2005, 08:55 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,272	Sorry about that, but, hey, your comment "What?! Thatcher was a woman? I thought she was Mussolini in drag" was what prompted me to post her picture so that everyone can judge whether she looks like Mussolini.

Nov 30, 2005, 12:38 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,272	It was a spontaneous hunt. Honest.

Dec 7, 2005, 04:49 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Nono, in my view certain crimes requires different procedures which can impinge on some due process safeguards. This is common sense and we accept it in cases involving sexual abuse when witnesses can testify without cross-examination (for example). In a terrorism case I'd anticipate a number of problematic areas; admissibility of evidence obtained abroad and the weight given thereto stands out. Given the risks associated with terrorism, strict compliance with criminal procedure minutiae would be ill-advised. The last thing any court wants now is to mistakenly err on the side of caution because this would likely mean lots of innocent people would suddenly die. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Dec 7, 2005, 05:40 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,321	But that doesn't mean chucking due process right out the window, as has been done with the ahh.. "illegal combatants" in Guantanamo Bay, for example. Thing is, reasonable safeguards are one thing. Saying "you'll stay locked up until it damn well suits us to let you go" is another. And never forget the enormous damage that this -- like the torture revelations -- has done to the reputation of the US. This hugely important fact never crosses the bushistas' wee minds. Anyway, we're pretty far off topic here, which I believe was the fortunes of Frau Bundeskanzlerin Merkel. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Dec 7, 2005, 08:06 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
shield772 110 Dead LEO's in 08 Location: Washington, WV Posts: 1,757	Why do you feel the persons in cuba being non US citizens that were captured fughting US soldiers on foreign soil should have US and Constitutional protections extended to them Republican Liberty Caucus Moderate Republican Officer Down Memorial Page

Dec 7, 2005, 08:46 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,321	Who says I do? I was talking about the Geneva Conventions, which the US has been violating in this respect for the past four years. I mean, if you don't plan to meet your obligations under those Conventions, you should renounce them like big boys and girls, instead of trying to have it both ways. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Dec 7, 2005, 08:53 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
shield772 110 Dead LEO's in 08 Location: Washington, WV Posts: 1,757	Ok I am reading the conventions and I see where violations have happened but they were not supported by the administration, the violators in our military have and are being tried for their actions. Now in saying that it's a big document and am still reading and have not seen any provision yet that calls for speedy trials and the such, so if it's there bear with me I'll get there unless you can tell me where to look and I can get there faster. Republican Liberty Caucus Moderate Republican Officer Down Memorial Page

Dec 7, 2005, 09:52 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
shield772 110 Dead LEO's in 08 Location: Washington, WV Posts: 1,757	Ok but does it give a timeline for these tribunal? Republican Liberty Caucus Moderate Republican Officer Down Memorial Page

Dec 7, 2005, 10:00 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,321	I refer you to the Commentary on the Third GC, which goes into great detail. Unfortunately it isn't online. But whaddya think, shield, that it says "Don't worry, make 'em sweat for 50 years or so?" You trying to get Rummie off on a technicality here? Obviously the US is obliged to do it as soon as they can get the individual in front of a court. And guess what, shield, the US Supreme Court agrees, and so instructed the Bush government two years ago. But Bush has simply ignored the Supreme Court. That isn't rule of law. That's a banana republic y'all livin in. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Dec 7, 2005, 10:15 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
shield772 110 Dead LEO's in 08 Location: Washington, WV Posts: 1,757	Part I : General provisions ARTICLE 5 The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/3...8?OpenDocument Republican Liberty Caucus Moderate Republican Officer Down Memorial Page

Dec 7, 2005, 10:32 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
shield772 110 Dead LEO's in 08 Location: Washington, WV Posts: 1,757	http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebList?...m&id=375&t=com This is the comentary on the third Convention Republican Liberty Caucus Moderate Republican Officer Down Memorial Page

Dec 7, 2005, 10:40 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
shield772 110 Dead LEO's in 08 Location: Washington, WV Posts: 1,757	I am unable to find anything in any of the Geneva Conventions anything that says how long they can be held or that while being held they have to be given trials unless they commit a crime while being detained, as long as we are recognizing them as enemy combatants and giving them proper treatment under the conventions I see no violations of any laws or conventions. Republican Liberty Caucus Moderate Republican Officer Down Memorial Page