obama\'s call for suspending trials on alleged terrorists

[slah]

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by cole-slah
Thank god there are enough decent intelligent and well-written topics on the forums that makes it possible to spit at the 2k postcount -mark.....

What the hell does this mean? You do know you technically have to be 18 to post here.

I thought my point was pretty evident, but sure - I can dumb it down a bit:

If you have found the forum and it´s various topics so interesting that you have felt the need to express your opinion almost 2000 times I don´t see the need for you to post condescending posts about the contents of the forum - and by extension it´s members.

 

[vincegamer]

I just want to reply to 2 factual errors made by Evil Dave:

Benefit = A very small percentile drop in accidental shootings, and suicides by shooting, which are infinitesimal in comparison to murders by illegal guns.

In fact, 58% of all deaths by gun in the USA are suicides.
http://www.psrla.org/documents/suicide_fact_sheet_final.pdf

The Convention gives the military the right to shoot unlawful combatants on sight without a trial.

Just not true. The Conventions never give such a right. They address how you treat people you capture and say that the rights under the Conventions don\'t apply to people who don\'t follow the Conventions.
Convention IV goes on to say
\"a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.\"
That\'s it, no communication.
and further:
\"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.\"

Doesn\'t sound like \"the armed forces of the occupying power may shoot to kill, anyone not obeying the conventions\" to me.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by vincegamer
I just want to reply to 2 factual errors made by Evil Dave:

Benefit = A very small percentile drop in accidental shootings, and suicides by shooting, which are infinitesimal in comparison to murders by illegal guns.

In fact, 58% of all deaths by gun in the USA are suicides.
http://www.psrla.org/documents/suicide_fact_sheet_final.pdf

If that is true, then in fact there are even less violent crimes committed by guns than thought.
I personally don\'t see suicide as a crime, but a choice, kind of like abortion.
Ya know the whole \" You can\'t tell me what to do with my body\" argument.
Which also means people who use guns to commit suicide really mean to die and will simply find another way.

 

[mud duck]

Originally posted by geaugan
As yet, as far as I know, no American has walked into a building to blow himself up and to murder a few children with a load of ball bearings. To accomplish What? If that isn\'t EVIL I don\'t know what is.

Forgetting about Timothy McVay?!?

@Vince Isn\'t the Convention only for legal combatants, those that are wearing a uniform or other uniform identification mark? It\'s been while since I\'ve studied it.

 

[vincegamer]

ED
I totally agree with you that suicide should be a choice.
I also didn\'t say a gun ban would end or even significantly reduce suicides. It will make it harder for some, and thus reduce the rate, but by what degree I don\'t think anyone has the data to say.
Since I live around DC, the recent SCOTUS ruling that found the handgun ban unconstitutional caused lots of people to anticipate an increased suicide rate, but the violent crime rate (already high: \"if it wasn\'t for all the killings, DC would be the safest city\" - Mayor Marion Berry) is in dispute. Pro-gun sides say it will drop, anti-gun sides say rise, and both have lots of studies supporting them.

MD
The Geneva Conventions talk about a lot of things that come up during armed conflict. The issues we\'re concerned with here are how to treat captives. The GCs divide people into groups that get various differing treatment: POWs, Saboteurs, field medical personnel, civilians, etc.
They say that every nation that is party to the GCs agrees to uniform their soldiers (and clearly mark medical personnel). They also say that nations that follow the GCs are treated as though they were paty to the GCs, and that nations that don\'t follow the GCs cannot claim the protections granted in the GCs.

So, the argument is that since AlQueda is not a nation, it cannot be party to the GCs and claim protection that way. Since AlQueda does not uniform its soldiers it cannot claim protection for them as POWs.

GCs also say that members to the GCs agree to follow the rules even against non-GC states.

So, the US has to follow the GCs even though fighting someone who does not follow the GCs.

The problem is, the terrorist fighters don\'t fit into any of the GC categories: not soldiers of a state, not medicos, not civilians, not citizens of a neutral third state, etc.
So how treat them?
Personally I think they should be treated as criminals - murderers, conspirators etc. Everything they\'ve done can be identified in the penal code, so treat them like criminals, and yes, that means give them trial, with counsel.

P.S.
McVey did not blow himself up. He planted a devastating bomb and walked away. Americans like to keep our own hides safe.

 

[uberdark]

you know the reason i post these topics on here is because it causes ppl to think.... to discuss these things and hopefully walk away with a better perspective on life when done. even if it is evil dave. hehehe. just joking man. and so what if things get regurgatated over and over..... apparently we havent learned enough from it yet and we need to better our selves by going over it and analyzing it again.

as long as ppl are willing to talk about these things then that means it is in the worlds collective conscious and somewhere in our heads we feel it needs to be discussed so discuss and have some fun.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by uberdark
you know the reason i post these topics on here is because it causes ppl to think.... to discuss these things and hopefully walk away with a better perspective on life when done. even if it is evil dave. hehehe. just joking man. and so what if things get regurgatated over and over..... apparently we havent learned enough from it yet and we need to better our selves by going over it and analyzing it again.

as long as ppl are willing to talk about these things then that means it is in the worlds collective conscious and somewhere in our heads we feel it needs to be discussed so discuss and have some fun.

Totally agree. And quite often in \'polite\' company these things are never even discussed. Better off sticking to the weather or the Super Bowl...never anything remotely controversial.

It\'s always enlightening to see others opinions.

Debate is healthy.

I\'d like to be a master debater.

 

[uberdark]

Originally posted by supervike


I\'d like to be a master debater.

arent you already a master at that in the bathroom.. lol

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by uberdark

Originally posted by supervike


I\'d like to be a master debater.

arent you already a master at that in the bathroom.. lol

I set them up, you knock them down.

I may be making it too easy for you guys.

 

[ScottRadom]

Originally posted by uberdark
you know the reason i post these topics on here is because it causes ppl to think.... to discuss these things and hopefully walk away with a better perspective on life when done. even if it is evil dave. hehehe. just joking man. and so what if things get regurgatated over and over..... apparently we havent learned enough from it yet and we need to better our selves by going over it and analyzing it again.

as long as ppl are willing to talk about these things then that means it is in the worlds collective conscious and somewhere in our heads we feel it needs to be discussed so discuss and have some fun.

And I\'ll say it again, Here on these boards it amazes me how these heated and passionate subjects can be handled with style, class, and respect for the other members. Except for that \"cole-slah\" rebuttle statement. That\'s weak sauce! I am going to rip it off and whenever I respond to any of Slah\'s posts I\'m going to throw in the Cole-Slah remark (he he, it\'s funny!).

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by cole-slah
Thank god there are enough decent intelligent and well-written topics on the forums that makes it possible to spit at the 2k postcount -mark.....

What the hell does this mean? You do know you technically have to be 18 to post here.

I thought my point was pretty evident, but sure - I can dumb it down a bit:

If you have found the forum and it´s various topics so interesting that you have felt the need to express your opinion almost 2000 times I don´t see the need for you to post condescending posts about the contents of the forum - and by extension it´s members.

It also took me 5 years to hit that mark. And...if you use the search function you\'ll find that many of the long-term members on here have made the same complaint at one time or another. I think you\'re a little too sensitive to be playing on the web-o-tron. I\'m a saint compared to some.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by philologus
It also took me 5 years to hit that mark. And...if you use the search function you\'ll find that many of the long-term members on here have made the same complaint at one time or another. I think you\'re a little too sensitive to be playing on the web-o-tron. I\'m a saint compared to some.

I don\'t think you need to defend yourself Philo...The observation is an astute one. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I just imagine this place more like a virtual bar, after a while, you\'ve heard all the stories. There\'s kind of a comfort in that.

 

[slah]

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by cole-slah
Thank god there are enough decent intelligent and well-written topics on the forums that makes it possible to spit at the 2k postcount -mark.....

What the hell does this mean? You do know you technically have to be 18 to post here.

I thought my point was pretty evident, but sure - I can dumb it down a bit:

If you have found the forum and it´s various topics so interesting that you have felt the need to express your opinion almost 2000 times I don´t see the need for you to post condescending posts about the contents of the forum - and by extension it´s members.

It also took me 5 years to hit that mark. And...if you use the search function you\'ll find that many of the long-term members on here have made the same complaint at one time or another. I think you\'re a little too sensitive to be playing on the web-o-tron. I\'m a saint compared to some.

I have to admit that I´ve always found the argument \" There are so many intarnetz morons that are worse than me, so I can be a moron too\" rather vapid.

But enough of this clever banter - you find the thread (and a lot of the other ones too) boring and predictable - I then suggest that you stop posting in this one and start a new one where you can dicuss the problem with your likeminded.

...No matter what I´ll stay on-topic from here on out.

 

[mud duck]

Originally posted by vincegamer

MD
The Geneva Conventions talk about a lot of things that come up during armed conflict. The issues we\'re concerned with here are how to treat captives. The GCs divide people into groups that get various differing treatment: POWs, Saboteurs, field medical personnel, civilians, etc.
They say that every nation that is party to the GCs agrees to uniform their soldiers (and clearly mark medical personnel). They also say that nations that follow the GCs are treated as though they were paty to the GCs, and that nations that don\'t follow the GCs cannot claim the protections granted in the GCs.

So, the argument is that since AlQueda is not a nation, it cannot be party to the GCs and claim protection that way. Since AlQueda does not uniform its soldiers it cannot claim protection for them as POWs.

GCs also say that members to the GCs agree to follow the rules even against non-GC states.

So, the US has to follow the GCs even though fighting someone who does not follow the GCs.

The problem is, the terrorist fighters don\'t fit into any of the GC categories: not soldiers of a state, not medicos, not civilians, not citizens of a neutral third state, etc.
So how treat them?
Personally I think they should be treated as criminals - murderers, conspirators etc. Everything they\'ve done can be identified in the penal code, so treat them like criminals, and yes, that means give them trial, with counsel.


P.S.
McVey did not blow himself up. He planted a devastating bomb and walked away. Americans like to keep our own hides safe.

I believe that you\'ve got a point here, but last I\'d heard, they or aleast some of them where getting a trial in MILITARY Court. I think that may be what pisses some people off, it\'s like a party and they weren\'t invited and only hear of the highlights the next morning.
As for McVay, does that make him smarter and/or less commited to his cause? But for a bit of bad luck he could have \'disappeared\' in to the background and planed bigger and badder attacks (IMHO).

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by supervike

Originally posted by philologus
It also took me 5 years to hit that mark. And...if you use the search function you\'ll find that many of the long-term members on here have made the same complaint at one time or another. I think you\'re a little too sensitive to be playing on the web-o-tron. I\'m a saint compared to some.

I don\'t think you need to defend yourself Philo...The observation is an astute one. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I just imagine this place more like a virtual bar, after a while, you\'ve heard all the stories. There\'s kind of a comfort in that.

Thanks. Is there an \"ignore\" button on these forums?