Why should I vote for McCain?

Terrorists are NOT PROTECTED BY GCIII, since they fail to meet the criteria as Prisoners of War as established in Article 4 of GCIII, and any protections they do receive are due solely to, and dependent upon, our pleasure. You mentioned Article 3 of GCIII, yet you failed (intentionally I presume) to mention the fact that Article 4 clearly excludes ANY of the individuals we have captured, in Iraq OR Afghanistan, since 9-11, so your Article 17 objection is MOOT. Just in case you'd care to actually take the time and actually read it, I'll include a LINK for you.

The people being held at Guantanamo are specifically classified and noted as Enemy Combatants. They are addressed & covered.

GCIII covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular, Article 17 says that "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 unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. Captured enemy combatants in an international armed conflict automatically have the protection of GCIII and are POWs under GCIII unless they are determined by a competent tribunal to not be a POW (GCIII Article 5).
 
Werbung:
The people being held at Guantanamo are specifically classified and noted as Enemy Combatants. They are addressed & covered.

GCIII covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular, Article 17 says that "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 unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. Captured enemy combatants in an international armed conflict automatically have the protection of GCIII and are POWs under GCIII unless they are determined by a competent tribunal to not be a POW (GCIII Article 5).

Unless, of course, the CIC determines that they aren't POW. Then, anything goes (apparently).
 
You shouldn't. You should vote for Cynthia McKinney, and the Green party ticket. If you don't, she might B**** slap you if you're white. LOL.
 
Unless, of course, the CIC determines that they aren't POW. Then, anything goes (apparently).

The CIC didn't determine they weren't POW's, GCIII does.

For your reference, GCIII, Articles 4 and 5 (complete).

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(and this covers Al Qaeda or the Taliban...how?)

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(Their command structure is.......what?)

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(perhaps you can show me exactly what "distinctive sign" that is "recognizable at a distance" that Al Qaeda or the Taliban wear?)

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(nope, they're usually just burying IED's)

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(again, NO. They fulfill NONE of the requirements, so they are NOT entitled to POW status under GCIII)

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(nope, doesn't sound like Al Qaeda or the Taliban to me)

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(nope, Al Qaeda and the Taliban don't carry any identification cards declaring themselves members of such, much less in accordance to the "annexed model")

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(nope, they don't qualify here either)

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

(nope, they've had PLENTY of time to form themselves into regular armed units, and again, they don't openly carry arms, nor respect the laws and customs of war.)

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(still no)

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

(nope, not here either)

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

(or here)

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.

(they don't fall into any of the categories in Article 4, so they're not POW's)

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.

(I've seen no reason to have any doubts about the status of ANY of the "belligerents" we've captured, so they're STILL not POW's.)

So you see, it's not the CIC that determined they weren't POW's, it's GCIII that determines that they're not POW's, due to THEIR OWN ACTIONS. Also, since GCIII does not grant them POW status, Article 17 doesn't apply.
 
The CIC didn't determine they weren't POW's, GCIII does.

For your reference, GCIII, Articles 4 and 5 (complete).



So you see, it's not the CIC that determined they weren't POW's, it's GCIII that determines that they're not POW's, due to THEIR OWN ACTIONS. Also, since GCIII does not grant them POW status, Article 17 doesn't apply.

Oh, I see. Since the GCIII determines that they aren't POW, then anything goes.

How did the taxi drivers and ordinary Iraqis become prisoners due to THEIR OWN ACTIONS (all caps copied, of course) again?
 
Oh, I see. Since the GCIII determines that they aren't POW, then anything goes.

How did the taxi drivers and ordinary Iraqis become prisoners due to THEIR OWN ACTIONS (all caps copied, of course) again?

They don't even have to be claimed as POW's. They are ENEMY COMBATANTS and that is exactly what the are being held as and even this Wacko administration calls them... and ENEMY COMBATANTS are specifically covered in the Geneva Convention.

The Supreme Court is finally starting to force some movement here... it's about time.

You probably heard that there are several Bush administration people that the State Department has advised NOT to travel outside of the country on the fear they might be picked up and detained on War Crimes charges.

There are quite a few people that are on very thin ice in this administration internationally. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out once the administration changes hands and a new Democratic administration won't run cover for them anymore.
 
They don't even have to be claimed as POW's. They are ENEMY COMBATANTS and that is exactly what the are being held as and even this Wacko administration calls them... and ENEMY COMBATANTS are specifically covered in the Geneva Convention.

The Supreme Court is finally starting to force some movement here... it's about time.

You probably heard that there are several Bush administration people that the State Department has advised NOT to travel outside of the country on the fear they might be picked up and detained on War Crimes charges.

There are quite a few people that are on very thin ice in this administration internationally. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out once the administration changes hands and a new Democratic administration won't run cover for them anymore.

Yes, it will be interesting. I don't think the new Republican administratiion, should that be the direction the election takes, will run cover for them anymore, either. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. McCain has experienced being an "enemy combatant" first hand, after all. Either way, the anything goes policy is about over, and not a minute too soon.
 
Oh, I see. Since the GCIII determines that they aren't POW, then anything goes.

How did the taxi drivers and ordinary Iraqis become prisoners due to THEIR OWN ACTIONS (all caps copied, of course) again?

If they were captured, and taken into custody, then apparently they WEREN'T just "taxi drivers and ordinary Iraqis" now were they? What possible motivation would our troops have for spending time and resources hauling "taxi drivers and ordinary Iraqis" in off the street? Do you not see how extraordinarily silly your argument is in the glaring light of day?
 
Yes, it will be interesting. I don't think the new Republican administratiion, should that be the direction the election takes, will run cover for them anymore, either. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. McCain has experienced being an "enemy combatant" first hand, after all. Either way, the anything goes policy is about over, and not a minute too soon.

Perhaps you'd care to show me where in GCIII it uses the phrase "enemy combatant". McCain was a POW, because, unlike the sheetheads we're dealing with in Iraq and Ashcanistan, he was in complete compliance with GCIII.

Oh, and one other thing, the only thing that SCOTUS ruled on was that they have the ability to contest their detention, it does NOT guarantee them any protections under GCIII.
 
If they were captured, and taken into custody, then apparently they WEREN'T just "taxi drivers and ordinary Iraqis" now were they? What possible motivation would our troops have for spending time and resources hauling "taxi drivers and ordinary Iraqis" in off the street? Do you not see how extraordinarily silly your argument is in the glaring light of day?

Some were "captured", others were turned in by other Iraqis for one reason or another. Often, the motivation was the reward money.
 
Perhaps you'd care to show me where in GCIII it uses the phrase "enemy combatant". McCain was a POW, because, unlike the sheetheads we're dealing with in Iraq and Ashcanistan, he was in complete compliance with GCIII.

Oh, and one other thing, the only thing that SCOTUS ruled on was that they have the ability to contest their detention, it does NOT guarantee them any protections under GCIII.

So, that's why anything goes?

If they're not POW, not enemy combatants, then just what are they? They aren't "terrorists" unless they have set off a bomb in a market, or some such thing, so many aren't that either. How about "captives", can we use that word?

Since they're just captives, anything goes.
 
McCain's willing to lower price of oil and help the poor.
Obama is tied to greenies and will never provide a solution
for the energy crisis in US.
 
Some were "captured", others were turned in by other Iraqis for one reason or another. Often, the motivation was the reward money.

Ah, so you admit that some were captured. Well, that's progress.

Also, you're telling me that the Iraqis turned "completely innocent" people over to us, claiming they were terrorists, for some reward money? If there's not a better reason for us to simply wipe the entire country off of the face of the map and do exactly what people like you've been accusing the President of since the beginning, namely TAKING the oil, I've not heard one yet.
 
Ah, so you admit that some were captured. Well, that's progress.

Also, you're telling me that the Iraqis turned "completely innocent" people over to us, claiming they were terrorists, for some reward money? If there's not a better reason for us to simply wipe the entire country off of the face of the map and do exactly what people like you've been accusing the President of since the beginning, namely TAKING the oil, I've not heard one yet.

Of course, some were captured. Does that justify the anything goes philosiphy?

There isn't a country on the face of the Earth that doesn't have at least some citizens who would turn their fellows over to an invading force for money. Do you really think that the US doesn't contain traitors, greedy people, or simply those with a thirst for revenge?
 
Werbung:
As a Canadian observer I find it very sad that Fox News keeps saying that Obama is the most liberal senator in the country and it seems to scare people. Or at least they think it scares people away from Obama. Being the most liberal senator amongst American senators would make him attractive IMO as America needs to move quickly to the left in order to even survive a very real threat of economic collapse.

As for a choice between McCain and Obama, at the moment I don't see much difference but that could be due to Obama knowing what his country needs but needing to lie to appease the majority of the people who are just not ready to hear the truth yet.

The only reason I could imagine that people should vote for McCain is because he is not a black man. From my POV and the POV of many outside the US, that is the only possible reason why an American would choose a old fool such as McCain over a very bright and progressive candidate such as Obama. Obama would obviously be the clear choice of non-Americans and is according to world polls. When we outsiders look at the two choices it is painfully obvious that Obama is the right choice.

However from an outsider's POV, do we or should we really care? Would it not be better to see America ground down to rock bottom before it recovers it's senses? Even though this is harmful to most other world economies would it not be better to end the US tyranny in the next four years with McCain and get the pain over with? I am of the opinion that even if Obama is being forced to lie about his intentions he still will not be capable of changing the American people enough to stop their evil course of action.

Americans will decide what they need to do and we should just continue to try to make them see the reality of the present situation they have created for themselves. Whether or not they are clever enough to listen is highly debatable and highly unlikely IMO.
 
Back
Top