I think you can count on any partisan, regardless of allegiance, to gloss over their own party’s mistakes. I don’t see any discussions on these boards about Howard Dean’s recent rants . . .[/quote]
Start one. The only thing keeping this forum from seeing more conservative discussions is the fact that almost few conservatives here create topics. People may not agree with your position, but I doubt they’ll be unwilling to discuss it. Or at least yell at you, if they’re midnight son or bren.
Well it’s not really a topic I’m interested in discussing either. I’m sure I seem like a right wing loony compared to the QT3 P&R median, but I am a democrat and my point about glossing over applies to myself as well ;-)
Well it’s not really a topic I’m interested in discussing either. I’m sure I seem like a right wing loony compared to the QT3 P&R median, but I am a democrat and my point about glossing over applies to myself as well ;-)[/quote]
You don’t seem like a loony. More conservative than the median on this forum, but that doesn’t take much. When there are people here who would be right at home on Free Republic, believe me, you don’t seem like a loon.
No, you can count of folks like Desslock to not comment on something he knows nothing about, like a foreign government’s administrative procedures, because I don’t know the rules, traditions — for the same reason I haven’t participated in filibuster discussion (we have completely different rules for filbusters, which go back to their origins and essentially require you to “not stop”, and not take any breaks whatsoever).
You’re right, that was churlish of him. You actually restrict yourself to overlapping cognitive dissonance denials of reality - Iraq wasn’t about WMD, everyone thought WMD was there, the WMD actually went to Syria, Paul Wolfowitz was right about everything…
Um, “not quite”, but nothing less than I’d expect from a “Fallujah massacre, U.S. isn’t complying with the Geneva Convention, Halliburtan caused the war” dude.
I asked for LK’s opinion of accusations that Fallujah was a disasterous massacre, I didn’t say it was true, because, you know, it’s not something I can form a reliable assessment of.
The US clearly wasn’t and probably isn’t complying with the Geneva Convention, unless you think Abu Ghirab was made up.
Never claimed Halliburton caused the war.
By contrast, you did say all of those things I mentioned, right?
Also, at some point (although maybe not derailing this thread) please explain which provisions of the Geneva Convention the U.S. “clearly” breached. That’s like saying Jeffrey Dahlmer violated the Geneva Conventions - it doesn’t excuse the vulgar nature of the conduct, but it’s not accurate. It’s actually probably more like saying that the Governor of the state that ran the prison in which Dahlmer was murdered violated the Geneva Conventions.
But doesn’t Geneva define enemy combatants (thus POWs) as those who wear a uniform, take up arms, work under a government, etc? I’m reasonably sure that most insurgents aren’t uniformed soldiers of an actual nation.
Put the kneejerk down, I’m not saying I agree with the policy. But if you are gonna claim Geneva on one part, you gotta take it all. In my view, the prisoners have a much better case by international human rights treaties than Geneva.
Here are the revelant passages which define the term prisoner of war, taken from the ‘Geneva Conventions’:
"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:
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.
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, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
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.
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.
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.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
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.
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.
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.
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."
