Prosecution of the Bush Administration

[Pangloss]

But what about the investigation needed to uncover the evidence? That suffers from the same problem: it's politically beneficial justice to one side, and a political witch-hunt to the other. Without the evidence, you can't tell which is right, but without the investigation, you can't get the evidence.

 

I've never expressed opposition to investigation. I do think it's politically motivated, but it's not damaging in the same sense, and as you say it may produce objective evidence.

 

 

And I think this has been the point with which I've been struggling.

 

Pangloss' date=' I know you are reasonable enough that you'd be fine with a prosecution if the evidence were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but you seem to regularly attempt to tamp down attempts to investigate and find said evidence.

[/quote']

 

Not even an apology for misquoting me, eh? Will you acknowledge this second misinterpretation of my position, or just ignore me again and keep telling everyone else (incorrectly) what Pangloss thinks?

[jackson33]

There, I added the missing bit inferred by the arguments in this thread.

 

Clearly the military is a bunch of yes-men pansies that choose to do wrong and hide behind their superiors with the pretense that they don't have time nor the platform or rank to have a talk about it and argue it all out on the battlefield. As if...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Interesting how even the most objective, obvious analysis of unlawful orders could still result in this dilemma, let alone subjective after-the-fact haggling that remains open for interpretation.

 

Too bad. Hang 'em anyway. That's a great way to promote confidence in putting your life on the line, not to mention a splendid version of 'thanks for risking your life while I sit here all comfy at home in my controlled environments, women, beer, TV, good times; judging your decision to obey your superiors is so much easier without all the sand and sweat and bullets flying'.

 

Frankly, I'm not sure where you stand on this issue, assume opposed to mine so I'll add a couple points....

 

To repeat; "IF, they were participating in an unauthorized revenge party for some personal reason, then were talking a different story, but all indications are they were under orders to humiliate, keep awake, physiologically breakdown certain inmates for reasons they probably never knew. Again they were denied the right to mitigate sentencing, which is a cardinal right, even under the MCOJ..." Adding....very few enlisted men or WOMEN, joining one of the Military Services is a student, much less graduate of LAW. A good share are HS drop outs, seeking High School Equivalency (offered), Citizenship (offered) or one of many benefits their level of education would not otherwise receive in the public sector. It become even more obvious in joining the reserves where a good share of todays active duty military is drawn. Point being knowing or understanding what your calling an 'unlawful order' is simply not a consideration, when told what to do or not to do.

 

Now, if I were a General on the battle front, with two years to retirement or past it and received an order that smelled illegal but given as an oder I would be hard pressed to deny compliance. General George Patton, probably issued more illegal orders than legal, yet often ignored the orders from Washington, Truman himself. I would have followed his orders any day any time...

 

Sisyphus; When I joined the AF, after I and probably 20 others took the oath, the Officer giving the oath said "do you understand". We all quietly said yes, which he replied to louder..."DO YOU UNDERSTAND" and of course somewhat louder we replied YES. To make his point I suppose, then said "YES WHAT" which as in the movies we replied 'YES SIR'. This was well after WWII, but during the times of drafting. (NOTE; Please do not misunderstand my opinions of todays Volunteer Military, in making my argument in their defense. I admire any person that willingly defends their Nation and really don't care for what reason)

 

Mr Skeptic; In 'Civil Law', ignorance of a law is not a defense. I have never practiced Military Law or had any reason to study, but I do know that to breach an Oath of Office, is an offense (illegal) and punishable. If you can explain to me how one wrong (not following an order) can become illegal to the person performing that illegal action, is justify able. Even under Civil Law, a person signing a 'morals clause' cannot be punished for a moral reason, if that reason was in the line of his/her duties. For instance a cop, infiltrating a drug ring or a lady cop soliciting tricks....

 

Once again, said another way; Many would be defenses on 'following orders' were in fact following NO orders. My arguments are that if they WERE following orders, then they have recourse and should be allowed those litigating arguments, or if not IMO are not liable for the crime...

[iNow]

I've never expressed opposition to investigation.

My mistake, then. I posted about allowing investigation, and most of your posts after that discussed how dangerous it was since politics and ideology is involved. After reviewing the thread, I see that your comments were specific to prosecution, not investigation, so thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

Not even an apology for misquoting me, eh?

I paraphrased you, and the meaning was close enough that an apology is not warranted. You said, "beyond a reasonable doubt" and I referenced it as, "proven without a shadow of a doubt." The meaning is parallel, so I'm somewhat surprised by your request for an apology.

 

In short, you're not getting one... Not on this issue, anyway.

[Sisyphus]

Sisyphus; When I joined the AF, after I and probably 20 others took the oath, the Officer giving the oath said "do you understand". We all quietly said yes, which he replied to louder..."DO YOU UNDERSTAND" and of course somewhat louder we replied YES. To make his point I suppose, then said "YES WHAT" which as in the movies we replied 'YES SIR'. This was well after WWII, but during the times of drafting. (NOTE; Please do not misunderstand my opinions of todays Volunteer Military, in making my argument in their defense. I admire any person that willingly defends their Nation and really don't care for what reason)

 

I don't really know what you're getting at, here.

[Pangloss]

I paraphrased you, and the meaning was close enough that an apology is not warranted. You said, "beyond a reasonable doubt" and I referenced it as, "proven without a shadow of a doubt." The meaning is parallel, so I'm somewhat surprised by your request for an apology.

 

You also used the phrase "absolute proof". Surely we can at least agree that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same thing as "absolute proof". I'd hate to have to review my entire line of reasoning here, but I can if you need me to.

[ParanoiA]

Frankly, I'm not sure where you stand on this issue, assume opposed to mine so I'll add a couple points....

 

No, you misread me. I was being sarcastic. My position is similar to yours.

 

My position is about objective interpretation. If it's muddy now, then it was even muddier then, and I don't like retroactive punishments when we've enjoyed the luxury of time to mull it all over.

 

And when it comes to punishing subordinates or even the leadership, due to the destructive nature of partisanship and political warfare, the requirements for launching investigations and punishments should be much higher and far more objective in interpretation.

 

Anything less invites political hack jobs on our leadership and is far more destructive to our goverment and our people than criminals in office. I'll take a GWB over a scared-shitless-to-even-move president any day of the week. I'll take a GWB over a contentious government frozen in fear of opposition power. That's how you get conquered and fail at everything.

[Sisyphus]

 

My position is about objective interpretation. If it's muddy now, then it was even muddier then, and I don't like retroactive punishments when we've enjoyed the luxury of time to mull it all over.

 

It's not that I completely disagree, but can't that be said about anything? Most of the time, a court of law has much, much more time to consider a defendant's conduct than the defendant himself did at the time of the actions under consideration. That doesn't get him off the hook for anything, though. Nor does ignorance of the law. Sometimes judgement is more lenient if there are convincing mitigating factors, but not necessarily, and never completely. Analyzing actions with the benefit of hindsight and distance is fundamental to the process. As is civilian oversight of the military, for that matter.

[JohnB]

ParanoiA, one thing to keep in mind is that we're not talking about individuals acting alone here. We are talking about officially sanctioned torture.

We prosecuted others who performed these same activities on our people (the Japanese in WWII, for example) so it's rather clear where we stand on these practices.

So is it clear where the US stands? Do US citizens condone officially sanctioned torture of accused persons or not? Remember that the vast majority of detainees had not been convicted of any crime in any court, they were merely accused.

 

People do horrible things in combat, that's just how it is. But a prison is not a combat zone, the same rules don't apply. there might be sand and sweat, but the bullets aint flyin'.

Point being knowing or understanding what your calling an 'unlawful order' is simply not a consideration, when told what to do or not to do.

Interesting idea. So your argument is that high school dropouts in the US have no idea that torturing people might be somehow "wrong"? Is there something so rotten in the core of US culture that it's people don't understand that torture is wrong from an early age and actually needs orders not to do it? Fascinating.

Now, if I were a General on the battle front, with two years to retirement or past it and received an order that smelled illegal but given as an oder I would be hard pressed to deny compliance.

Which goes to show that in your opinion, a General has less balls than the average grunt in the field.

My arguments (in regards to convicted subordinates) are based on the above and the accepted practices of the military with precedence over the years.

Except that the accepted practices in all civilised nations is that "I was following orders" (generally known as the "Nuremburg Defense") is not a defense. I will reluctantly accept that it may be a mitigating circumstance when it comes to sentencing, but not guilt.

To repeat; "IF, they were participating in an unauthorized revenge party for some personal reason, then were talking a different story, but all indications are they were under orders to humiliate, keep awake, physiologically breakdown certain inmates for reasons they probably never knew.

Inmates died. They weren't "kept awake", they had the sh*t beaten out of them and then hung in chains where they died. Is this sort of official action acceptable to you? If so, how many have to die before it is not?

 

Where are you going to draw the line? Because you have to draw one somewhere, you know that. Where is it and how do you justify it? Your position puts you in a very dark dilemma.

 

A last point.

 

The US has a large number of very brave and capable men and women risking their lives to protect your society. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not the society they appear to be protecting is worth it. Is a society that sanctions people being arrested, beaten and killed while in custody worth protecting?

 

IMO, such a society is not worth one drop of blood from a single serviceman.

[jackson33]

John;

 

1- "People do horrible things in combat, that's just how it is. But a prison is not a combat zone, the same rules don't apply. there might be sand and sweat, but the bullets ain't flyin'."

 

I only have the testimony of MP's or prison guards to go with, but they sure won't agree with you assessment.

 

2-"Interesting idea. So your argument is that high school dropouts in the US have no idea that torturing people might be somehow "wrong"? Is there something so rotten in the core of US culture that it's people don't understand that torture is wrong from an early age and actually needs orders not to do it? Fascinating."

 

Following orders, for the most part has caused the death of 300 plus thousand of the US Military since the beginning of WWII and a couple million injuries. If you think I am concerned about 2 deaths that occurred in a Military Prison, would change policy of Government or concede the probability that many events were halted, based on those two death your talking to the wrong person.

 

3- "Which goes to show that in your opinion, a General has less balls than the average grunt in the field."

 

Col. David Hunt, a Fox News contributor, with 29 years service time has admitted giving illegal orders on two occasions, turned himself in and apparently since retired in good standing, was exonerated. I would think there have been others, but that opinion is based on how 'I might react'. Since never in that position, of course I don't really know...

 

4- "Except that the accepted practices in all civilized nations is that "I was following orders" (generally known as the "Nuremburg Defense") is not a defense. I will reluctantly accept that it may be a mitigating circumstance when it comes to sentencing, but not guilt."

 

Think I have made that point (mitigating circumstances), maybe 10 times and in many cases nullified the charges in total. Sorry, though said 'NOT A VALID DEFENSE' it remains a defense, used and even in the case where talking about brought in a portion of the command structure. Since my first post on this issue, my arguments are that if the order came from the Civilian Administration, no order can be construed illegal (all Presidential Military Decisions over rides any military command). In the US...

 

5- "Inmates died. They weren't "kept awake", they had the sh*t beaten out of them and then hung in chains where they died. Is this sort of official action acceptable to you? If so, how many have to die before it is not?"

 

From post # 6......

Beginning in 2004, accounts of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture, sodomy[1] and homicide[2] of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. These acts were committed by personnel of the 372nd Military Police Company of the United States Army together with additional US governmental agencies.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghr...prisoner_abuse

 

I have stated, "that I don't know the circumstances behind the deaths", referencing those that were convicted of crimes and have said if treatment of these war prisoners (caught on the battlefield or in their aid) was based on the group charged in total (their own action) then my opinions were void. They were based on the notion that the Executive Branch had authorized certain treatment and now known with the advice and consent of Congress.

 

6- "Where are you going to draw the line? Because you have to draw one somewhere, you know that. Where is it and how do you justify it? Your position puts you in a very dark dilemma."

 

Your asking for an opinion, so I'll give it; Under 'political correctness' the US has gone to fighting war in the public arena, politically demonstrating the errors according to the Presidents political affiliation and seems to have forgotten what war actually is. It has been over history to destroy the moral and ability of a SOCIETY (Country) to continue battle or into submission. You simply are not going to achieve this, pampering an enemy it must be assumed is equally interested in doing the same to yourself or treating enemy combatants as equals to citizens of the your Nation. I would then draw the line of getting the job DONE, from either the offensive or defensive action until one or the other surrenders. If this includes taking prisoners, housing and putting up with a whole lot more than you might imagine, then so be it.

 

7- "The US has a large number of very brave and capable men and women risking their lives to protect your society. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not the society they appear to be protecting is worth it. Is a society that sanctions people being arrested, beaten and killed while in custody worth protecting?"

 

I agree and I was on a Military Installation in California, as the Twin Towers fell. You could feel the emotion of the men/women soldiers, see it on their faces and they were a 100% volunteer group. It was an inspirational experience, that didn't end there with every person I knew at the time wanted to join something to revenge the attack. Every driver in my little Truck Company, leased to a Major Company wanted to drive free, use my equipment (I agreed) and a couple soon joined the service. I also recall after the bombs fell in Japan, while my Dad was headed that way and during the Korean Conflict when all my family was involved in producing War Materials for the effort, in St. Louis. You might not think this society is worth protecting, but they have done no less for many peoples around the world, many times and if you won't give GWB any credit, it's been this society that freed Afghanistan and Iraq societies and continues to try and shut down a 15th Century mentality of rule.

 

8- "IMO, such a society is not worth one drop of blood from a single serviceman".

 

We are a single society, military/civilian and we pride ourself as a promoter of freedom for all Nations. You might wish to rethink you attitudes or at least understand that all you hear or read, may not in fact be reality. How many Counties today, including Australia, know who would be first to arrive in their defense???

[Pangloss]

1- "People do horrible things in combat' date=' that's just how it is. But a prison is not a combat zone, the same rules don't apply. there might be sand and sweat, but the bullets ain't flyin'."

 

I only have the testimony of MP's or prison guards to go with, but they sure won't agree with you assessment.[/quote']

 

<blows mod whistle>

 

Nonsense. You're using a logical fallacy here, suggesting that prisons are actually a war zone just because they're ugly places. They are not.

 

 

Following orders, for the most part has caused the death of 300 plus thousand of the US Military since the beginning of WWII and a couple million injuries. If you think I am concerned about 2 deaths that occurred in a Military Prison, would change policy of Government or concede the probability that many events were halted, based on those two death your talking to the wrong person.

 

<blows mod whistle>

 

Then why are you discussing this issue? You might as well have just said "I will never believe that such a thing could happen", in which case you have no business participating in this kind of discussion.

 

Got no problem with the rest of that. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

[The Bear's Key]

I'm still of mind to just investigate and don't prosecute. Simply expose all. No threat of what happened to Romans, huh?

 

Below is Mr Skeptic's idea which I also like.

 

Anyhow, how about a compromise? Let there be a full investigation, and let the facts be made public. Then let the Republican party be made responsible for any punishment or lack thereof.

Brilliant!

 

At first I was going to suggest Democrats investigate, make open all details to the public, then let Republicans handle it from there.

 

However, it'd be much better to have an independent team investigate, the assignment process made completely transparent, equip the investigators with a high-ranking investigatory powers so no one can hinder them, and open all details/revelations of criminal activities to the public.....then let Republicans handle the assignment of consequences. Or lack thereof. I fully support it.

 

Obama can do this and hardly be accused of political revenge -- if he asked that only Republicans in Congress were given sole authority of how justice shall be dealt...if at all.

So what are people's thoughts?

 

 

Earlier this year threads were started against the use of WP munitions in Gaza by the IDF. This was deemed close to a war crime. Yet the use of WP munitions in the same or very similar fashion by US forces during the second battle of Fallujah didn't rate a mention.

 

Unfortunately the position of the US on some matters is not quite as clear as it perhaps should be.

It seems pretty clear in how or where it's used. (or by whom )

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

 

US military: 44 Afghan cases of white phosphorus

 

The U.S. accused Afghan militants Monday of using white phosphorus as a weapon in "reprehensible" attacks on U.S. forces and in civilian areas.

........

The U.S. said militants used white phosphorus in improvised explosive attacks at least seven times since spring 2007, some in civilian areas.

.

Of course, though, the U.S. were using it for illumination and a smoke screen, where militants seem to use it as weapon only.

The militants' use of white phosphorus as a weapon could cause "unnecessary suffering" as defined in the laws of warfare, U.S. spokeswoman Maj. Jenny Willis said.

Edited May 12, 2009 by The Bear's Key
added more

[JohnB]

If you think I am concerned about 2 deaths that occurred in a Military Prison, would change policy of Government or concede the probability that many events were halted, based on those two death your talking to the wrong person.

My point was that it doesn't matter if it's 2 deaths or 2,000. The principle remains the same. Institutionalised torture is banned by civilised nations, including the US.

my arguments are that if the order came from the Civilian Administration, no order can be construed illegal (all Presidential Military Decisions over rides any military command). In the US...

Flat out wrong. A President can give an illegal order, just as Congress can pass laws later found to be unconstitutional and also wrong. The argument "It can't be illegal because the President gave the order" is just as logically bankrupt as "It must be right because the Pope said it". Are you replacing Papal Infallibility with a Presidential one?

From post # 6......

Beginning in 2004, accounts of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture, sodomy[1] and homicide[2] of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. These acts were committed by personnel of the 372nd Military Police Company of the United States Army together with additional US governmental agencies.[3]

From the Wiki link;

Col. Karpinski has denied knowledge of the abuses, claiming that the interrogations were authorized by her superiors and performed by subcontractors, and that she was not even allowed entry into the interrogation rooms.

So you think those who committed the acts deserve mitigating circumstances and you appear to have no interest in finding out who actually gave the orders. The "subcontractors" also got off scot free.

 

"Subcontractor". Isn't that a nice term? What a land of opportunity America must be. A place where even out of work torturers can get a job "subcontracting" for the US government. Doesn't that just make your heart fill with pride?

You simply are not going to achieve this, pampering an enemy it must be assumed is equally interested in doing the same to yourself or treating enemy combatants as equals to citizens of the your Nation.

Pity your troops were doing it to civillians then, isn't it?

I would then draw the line of getting the job DONE, from either the offensive or defensive action until one or the other surrenders. If this includes taking prisoners, housing and putting up with a whole lot more than you might imagine, then so be it.

So the difference between you and those you are fighting is.......... Um, You are better dressed?

if you won't give GWB any credit, it's been this society that freed Afghanistan and Iraq societies and continues to try and shut down a 15th Century mentality of rule.

It's not much of an improvement if you are going to use 16th Century interrogation techniques.

 

The Ideal.

We are a single society, military/civilian and we pride ourself as a promoter of freedom for all Nations. You might wish to rethink you attitudes or at least understand that all you hear or read, may not in fact be reality.

Reality.

Reality.

Reality.

 

How many Counties today, including Australia, know who would be first to arrive in their defense???

It might surprise you to find out that we don't know. What we know is that the US will act in it's own percieved best interests and if that means throwing somebody else to the wolves, then so be it.

 

(There is nothing wrong with that BTW, every nation acts in it's own percieved best interests. It's a fact of life.)

 

jackson, you have a deep belief in the values of your nation, values which I happen to share. The America you believe in is worth fighting for.

 

But if you are going to excuse those who order or commit atrocities, then the America you will get won't be the one you want it to be. If we let our standards slip down to their level, we have lost the battle for we will be just like them.

 

And just so you know, I'm not some politically correct peacenik. I've worn the Dark Green.

[jackson33]

John; Much of this conversation and on other threads, pertains to obligations or action during times of war, under the 1864 Geneva Convention and four following agreements in particular the 1949 agreements after WWII. As an advocate FOR the United Nations, believing the world would be better off if all Societies had a voice in things that concern their people, or if nothing else contributing knowledge of differences in ideology, it's hard for me to advocate that the Geneva Agreements have an unrealistic attitude on many issues;

-------------------------------------------

Article 17; Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

"Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information."

 

"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."

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

 

The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns. These four treaties are the basis for humanitarian law across the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

--------------------------------------------

 

It then is my opinion (ParanoiA), that in the interest of the security of the US, authorized and legal under the US Constitution/Laws and charged to the Executive, that the President can over ride with authority, anything deemed illegal under International Laws.

 

 

1- "My point was that it doesn't matter if it's 2 deaths or 2,000. The principle remains the same. Institutionalized torture is banned by civilized nations, including the US."

 

Would it be acceptable to you, that if one or more combatants, with authority under OBL or others Taliban Leaders (the assumed enemy) where thought to have information on pending attacks on the homeland or the battlefield, that the GCT was followed and -x- number of deaths followed. Take it to a personal level; say a child of yours was kidnapped and the perp was apprehended. Wouldn't you insist that person be vigorously questioned to find out the location of that child...dead or alive. When dealing with uncivilized individuals (even if only perceived) being civilized is (in my mind) asking for the worst possible outcome.

 

2- "Flat out wrong. A President can give an illegal order, just as Congress can pass laws later found to be unconstitutional and also wrong. The argument "It can't be illegal because the President gave the order" is just as logically bankrupt as "It must be right because the Pope said it". Are you replacing Papal Infallibility with a Presidential one?"

 

So long as the President follows the US Constitution or Laws pertaining to his authority and the Congress has financed those actions, he can often does give orders seen as objectionable to outright wrong to on average half the people. In wartime it can be against the wishes of most the people, being privy to information not known to the general public. No again, if Congress passes an amendment and it's ratified by 3/4th the States, that Law become part of the Constitution. Any amendment already enacted can be modified by Congress with out ratification if authorized in the amendment and most are.

Said another way they can raise taxes to 100% of all wages over 10k per year and it would be perfectly legal, but kind of think they would soon be out of a job.

 

3- "So the difference between you and those you are fighting is...."

 

I would hope, those I was fighting thought NONE!!! IMO, recruits for their cause would be drastically reduced if they thought their trip to Heavens Rewards, would be less likely to happen if caught and punished in the same manner their command does...So you don't misunderstand, I do realize most believers in the Islamic Faith are neither radical or followers of those movement. At least I'm hoping not....

 

4- "It's not much of an improvement if you are going to use 16th Century interrogation techniques" Same as 3.........

 

5- "It might surprise you to find out that we don't know. What we know is that the US will act in it's own percieved best interests and if that means throwing somebody else to the wolves, then so be it."

 

I'll be honest; In many ways the US is in unchartered territory and IMO Obama is treading on an 'Isolationist Policy', however the US has for many years has backed it's treaties with other Nations and has a military presence in most. Taiwan worries me, but feel they will voluntarily join China before any actions are needed and of course Korea is a concern. Our treaties with Canada and Australia are linked to many with the UK and those with the UK will be enforced. Short of Australia going to war with England (don't see that) I believe the US (even under Obama) would protect Australia and be the first one there.

 

6- "jackson, you have a deep belief in the values of your nation, values which I happen to share. The America you believe in is worth fighting for."

 

Believe me on this one; If I thought you were not sincere in your opinions or I felt you had some grudge against the US, I wouldn't bother to reply. There are hundreds of forums out there, that I could post 100 times a day, never get an argument or would anyone disagree. What would be the point in that? As I told Buffy on another forum I think you post, I post at most 3 times a day when I can and am interested only in YOUR opinions or the responses in the thread. Currently I am trying to get used to Microsoft 'Vista' which am having trouble with, but manage a couple or so daily, always looking for ideas that can be used elsewhere in published articles.

 

I still feel your problem is the US system, State Rights/Federal and the concept of individualism over group associations, but then most in the US don't understand these either.

 

 

ParinoiA;

 

"Nonsense. You're using a logical fallacy here, suggesting that prisons are actually a war zone just because they're ugly places. They are not."

 

While captive in a 'Prison Camp' the military structure is maintained. Rank still prevails and it's the acknowledged duty of US Military or any others is to escape, gather information or if possible to disrupt enemy activity. While a Camp may not be CONSIDERED part of the battlefield, we are taught and ordered to treat it as such....

--------------------------------

In the Korean and Vietnam wars, these enemy nations considered the prisoner of war camp as part of the battlefield. They used a variety of tactics including mental and physical torture to get information from the POW's.

 

"If I am capture I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy."

http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagjp021.php (Military Code of Conduct)

------------------------------

The first such reason for escapes, in fact, was that it was legal to do so, a privilege guaranteed by the Geneva Convention of 1929. Simply put, it is the duty of captured soldiers to escape. Unlike a civilian criminal who is under a legal and moral obligation to serve out a sentence...

http://uboat.net/men/pow/escapes_us.htm (Something I didn't know about WWII)

-----------------------------

 

"Then why are you discussing this issue? You might as well have just said "I will never believe that such a thing could happen", in which case you have no business participating in this kind of discussion."

 

As I recall, my responses are replies to directed at me statements. Frankly were getting off topic and I would apologize for that, but not my content which in politics or law are always opinion.

 

You do realize this entire thread is based on an assumption that 'non affiliated' combatants have any rights under the Geneva Convention, in the first place and arguable on there own merits. Under International Law, the US has no authority to forceably remove a person from a Country that is not military, as I undersatand it....

[iNow]

JYou do realize this entire thread is based on an assumption that 'non affiliated' combatants have any rights under the Geneva Convention, in the first place and arguable on there own merits. Under International Law, the US has no authority to forceably remove a person from a Country that is not military, as I undersatand it....

 

Actually, this seems to be part of the problem. Based on this statement, you have no idea what this thread is about. This thread is about the laws of our nation, the values and motivations underlying those laws, and whether or not any of our people... whether citizen, military, or elected official... are above those laws. This thread is about whether or not the Bush administration should be prosecuted/investigated for their breakage of laws while in power, not an "assumption that non affiliated combatants have any rights under the Geneva Convention."

 

Since you do not seem to understand that, this helps to illuminate and explain to me why I find your posts so irrelevant and easily dismissed.

[Pangloss]

I'm inclined to agree with what iNow said above, and I'm taking this opportunity to remind everyone that deliberately changing the subject in order to avoid the subject of the thread and misdirect the participants to focus in another direction is against our purpose here and may be a violation of policy.

 

It's okay to say that you think that X (the thread subject) is caused by some other, external factors that aren't being included in the discussion, and it's even okay to say that the subject is not what's really important (so long as you don't harp on it, as I've sometimes done!). But it's not okay to dominate a thread with positions that aren't germain to the subject of the thread. If you find yourself in that position it's not necessarily a rules violation, but it might be best just to say your piece and move on.

[jackson33]

I'm inclined to agree with what iNow said above, and I'm taking this opportunity to remind everyone that deliberately changing the subject in order to avoid the subject of the thread and misdirect the participants to focus in another direction is against our purpose here and may be a violation of policy.

 

It's okay to say that you think that X (the thread subject) is caused by some other, external factors that aren't being included in the discussion, and it's even okay to say that the subject is not what's really important (so long as you don't harp on it, as I've sometimes done!). But it's not okay to dominate a thread with positions that aren't germain to the subject of the thread. If you find yourself in that position it's not necessarily a rules violation, but it might be best just to say your piece and move on.

 

I am sorry your inclined to agree with iNow "Since you 'jackson33' do not seem to understand that, this helps to illuminate and explain to me why I find your posts so irrelevant and easily dismissed." Will contribute less once have made a statement. I would normally disagree and that subjects that interest a poster and are replied to SHOULD deserve a reply. For some reason 'bascule' starts threads, that do just that and on more than one occasion, I have responded to his thread to stimulate a discussion. On this particular one, 'Prosecution of the Bush Administration', short of a reply to a comment directed to me (as this is), my comments have been directly relevant.

[Pangloss]

Rudeness is never acceptable and when I let it pass it's not because I agree with it or support it, but mainly because my whomping stick is overused as it is.

 

I appreciate your contributions here, jackson33. But I also think it is important not to allow subject-widening as an argument, and that's what I'm here for, to help keep that from happening.