war is not about rules, war is about winning

[actsnoblemartin]

We will never win any war, ever again... unless we get rid of rules of engagement, stop trying our young men and women, for every minor infraction, and do everything we can, including torture, bombing, whatever neccesary to win.

Is it really better to lose and feel elitest about ourselves, or win and feeling bad that we had to do whatever was neccesary to win, but proud that we defended the rights of our children, our friends, our country to survive, and knowing we did what we thought was best, what was neccesary, and feeling realistic about the situation that we had no choice, but to win or have our throats slit/be on a prayer rug.

I say victory is our only option, and whatever it takes to win, we dont have the luxury of being snooty elitest snobs, who thinks were better then anyone/everyone, we have to be the tough, mean, evil, sons of bitches who won the god dam war.

Does anyone think we need did whatever was neccesary to win wwII?

Sometimes, you have to do the WRONG thing, for the RIGHT reason

[retiredman]

We will never win any war, ever again... unless we get rid of rules of engagement, stop trying our young men and women, for every minor infraction, and do everything we can, including torture, bombing, whatever neccesary to win.

Is it really better to lose and feel elitest about ourselves, or win and feeling bad that we had to do whatever was neccesary to win, but proud that we defended the rights of our children, our friends, our country to survive, and knowing we did what we thought was best, what was neccesary, and feeling realistic about the situation that we had no choice, but to win or have our throats slit/be on a prayer rug.

I say victory is our only option, and whatever it takes to win, we dont have the luxury of being snooty elitest snobs, who thinks were better then anyone/everyone, we have to be the tough, mean, evil, sons of bitches who won the god dam war.

Does anyone think we need did whatever was neccesary to win wwII?

Sometimes, you have to do the WRONG thing, for the RIGHT reason

let me ask you: what makes america better than any other place on earth?

[mrg666]

let me ask you: what makes america better than any other place on earth?

any other place ?

[dan]

let me ask you: what makes america better than any other place on earth?

http://www.efdisaster.com/images/kfcfb.jpg

[82Marine89]

let me ask you: what makes america better than any other place on earth?

We have American Idol? :dunno:

[manu1959]

let me ask you: what makes america better than any other place on earth?

nothing....there are places equal or better than america to live....

[dan]

We have American Idol? :dunno:

England had it first, though.

[red states rule]

nothing....there are places equal or better than america to live....

and I wish MM and his liberal friends would go to one of those places ASAP

[truthmatters]

what made us better was our commitment to be a decent country.

Some here now live on LIES!

[red states rule]

what made us better was our commitment to be a decent country.

Some here now live on LIES!

Yes, but we are trying to educate you libs about your lies, and bring you back to the real world

But you keep fighting it

[jimnyc]

what made us better was our commitment to be a decent country.

Some here now live on LIES!

We know, we read your posts all the time, and we also see your refusal to backup 99% of the crap you post.

[manu1959]

what made us better was our commitment to be a decent country.

Some here now live on LIES!

there have always been better places to live than america.....even when big bill was getting blow jobs and letting millions die in darfur rawanda and bosnia.....

[actsnoblemartin]

I disagree with the premise of your question, america is a country with faults, like any other nation, its not about being better, its about surviving, that is the goal of any nation, and the major difference is we dont cut off peoples heads. we dont do honor killings, we dont whip people, women and gays have more rights, freedom of religion.

we are better then our enemies, but its debatable if we are better then every country, some think ireland, scotland, canada, insert country here is better. I dont care about better, i care about surviving as a country and a people


let me ask you: what makes america better than any other place on earth?

[retiredman]

I disagree with the premise of your question, america is a country with faults, the major difference is we dont cut off peoples heads.

so you would disagree with the propostion that the preeminence of our constitution and our reliance on the rule of law makes us a better place to live than countries who do NOT have such a framework for justice?

[dan]

so you would disagree with the propostion that the preeminence of our constitution and our reliance on the rule of law makes us a better place to live than countries who do NOT have such a framework for justice?

Careful, that question is so loaded, it's about to burst!

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with you, the u.s.a. is a nice place to live because of the rights it affords it citizens, i just dont think that foreign terrorists deserve the same rights.

Also, rules need to have exceptions because sometimes, you have to bend and flex them to do the right thing.

A rule maybe legally correct and morally bankrupt, but yes a nation without laws, and proper enforcement of those laws is an anarchy and a no good society.

I simply disagree with some laws.


so you would disagree with the propostion that the preeminence of our constitution and our reliance on the rule of law makes us a better place to live than countries who do NOT have such a framework for justice?

[retiredman]

I agree with you, the u.s.a. is a nice place to live because of the rights it affords it citizens, i just dont think that foreign terrorists deserve the same rights.

Also, rules need to have exceptions because sometimes, you have to bend and flex them to do the right thing.

A rule maybe legally correct and morally bankrupt, but yes a nation without laws, and proper enforcement of those laws is an anarchy and a no good society.

I simply disagree with some laws.


And you disagree with me out of ignorance. Please show me where I have EVER suggested that terrorists deserve the same rights as citizens.

At issue is the constitution. At issue is Article VI. At issue is a treaty that we signed, that, according to that article, IS THE LAW OF THE FUCKING LAND. Your deaf friend, RSR, is on record as saying he doesn't care what any treaty says, he would do whatever needed to be done to extract intelligence from terror suspects. AND YOU HAVE AGREED WITH HIM. Extreme sleep deprivation? OK with both of you. Against the treaty. Hypothermia? OK with both of you. Against the treaty. You both have basically said that ANYTHING we need to do to try and get information from terror suspects is perfectly acceptable to you. That may sound delightfully patriotic to you and your pal, but it flies in the face of the constitution and the law of the land. sorry.

and in America, we don't give our citizens the right to ignore those laws they disagree with. sorry again.

[actsnoblemartin]

And you disagree with me out of ignorance. Please show me where I have EVER suggested that terrorists deserve the same rights as citizens.

me: I am NOT suggesting you said that, but some people who are of democratic or liberal persuasion believe that, sorry i did not clarify what i meant the first time

At issue is the constitution. At issue is Article VI. At issue is a treaty that we signed,

we resigned the treaty but we also said this.. care to explain what it means, cause to me it sounds like lawyeristic for, we can do whatever the fuck we want :), so :P

The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."[4] The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States.[5] Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.[6][7] "Human rights have been a cornerstone of American values since the country's birth and the United States is committed to support the work of the UN Commission in promoting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ion_provisions

that, according to that article, IS THE LAW OF THE FUCKING LAND.

me: it is a terrible law, a feel good law... that should not apply to terrorists, i completely oppose that law on the ground that only american citizens and those captured of an official government army, not enemy combatants get rights, and with only 3 people water boarded, i dont see why rules cant be interpreted and exceptions made

Your deaf friend, RSR, is on record as saying he doesn't care what any treaty says,

me: Because the treaty is going to hamper us from winning the war on terrorism in my humble opinion.

he would do whatever needed to be done to extract intelligence from terror suspects.

me: I believe it is the right thing to do, to potentially save thousands, up to millions of lives. Im not saying do it for no reason, do it to be assholes, im saying, if we have honest reason to believe little jonny terrorist has info that can prevent 1 innocent american marine from being blown up, then i want him to suffer. Again, this is JUST MY OPINION

AND YOU HAVE AGREED WITH HIM.
Extreme sleep deprivation? OK with both of you. Against the treaty.

Me: I disagree with the treaty, if legally we are breaking the law by torturing that is one thing, but what if realistically, we dont torture and people die because we didnt do everything possible to stop them from killing our civilians and armed forces, could you imagine having to tell all those families, we could have prevented this, but we didnt have the stomach for it. Again, its my opinion.

Hypothermia? OK with both of you.

me: in some cases im ok with it. If it is used to save lives, and its documented. I dont want people tortured for no reason, with no merit

Against the treaty. You both have basically said that ANYTHING we need to do to try and get information from terror suspects is perfectly acceptable to you.

Me: the constitution can be changed, remember it did once say blacks were not a whole person, so even the constitution can be wrong, its not infalliable.

That may sound delightfully patriotic to you and your pal, but it flies in the face of the constitution and the law of the land. sorry.

me: no apology needed, I respect your opinion.. I understand that oh shit, why did america sign a treaty saying we cant do that, and then do that. its retarded!. We shouldnt break our treaties, we should follow the law, and we should NOT ratify this stupid thing again, but also, people should not have their heads cut off either.
I wish the world didnt suck, and i didnt feel torture was neccesary in some situations or useful at times, but i do, and im sorry we dont agree.

and in America, we don't give our citizens the right to ignore those laws they disagree with. sorry again.

me: I agree that we should follow the law, but why cant their be exclusions and exceptions, arent laws supposed to be flexible not set in stone?


me: besides, the government doesnt follow the rules anyway, just look at how they waste our money, and dont protect our border.

[retiredman]

I disagree with your interpretation of our signing statement. And so, by the way, does Tom Ridge...the FIRST head of Homeland Security.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIFsTo19N8Z7aMbOOQ2C-X0NmJXgD8U8JGPO1

And you are basically saying that the government doesn't follow the rules so fuck it, let's just piss on the constitution.

[actsnoblemartin]

no im saying im frustrated, I am not in favor of anarchy... I am not in favor of the government signing treaties it wont enforce, however...

let me read your link, before i say more


I disagree with your interpretation of our signing statement. And so, by the way, does Tom Ridge...the FIRST head of Homeland Security.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIFsTo19N8Z7aMbOOQ2C-X0NmJXgD8U8JGPO1

And you are basically saying that the government doesn't follow the rules so fuck it, let's just piss on the constitution.

[actsnoblemartin]

I believe water boarding is torture. Ive seen in once on tv, it is disturbing.

there are two interesting points here.

Is it torture or making terrorists uncomfortable.

If there was no treaty, where would the line be?

is there a line, or a rule is a rule

its an interesting thought.

also, how many lives has torture saved?

have we been wrong at times.

I dont like angry, emotional, flaming discussions.

we should be able to disagee without being disagreeble

any actual non biased numbers to tell me how well torture works, how often we use it?

was it only 3 times?

is it effective?

[red states rule]

Yes Martin, here are the things libs like MM and BP do not want you to know about waterboarding

It has not been used in years

It was used only 3 times

Each time it was used the terrorist cracked in less then 1 minute

Each time, the terrorist gave up info that stopped other attacks, and allowed the US to pick up more terrorists

When Dems saw the waterboarding tapes, they offered no objections - now they have their shorts in a knot

Dems are whining about the "torture" of terrorists for one reason - trying to score political points now that the war has turned around and is going against them

[retiredman]

Yes Martin, here are the things libs like MM and BP do not want you to know about waterboarding

It has not been used in years

It was used only 3 times

Each time it was used the terrorist cracked in less then 1 minute

Each time, the terrorist gave up info that stopped other attacks, and allowed the US to pick up more terrorists

When Dems saw the waterboarding tapes, they offered no objections - now they have their shorts in a knot

Dems are whining about the "torture" of terrorists for one reason - trying to score political points now that the war has turned around and is going against them


how many times we pissed on the constitution is really not the issue. The fact that we pissed on it is.

I never saw any tapes. I have always been against torturing prisoners because I believe it is against the law of the land, as delineated in the Un Convention regarding torture and inhumane treatment, of which we are a signatory.

[Kathianne]

how many times we pissed on the constitution is really not the issue. The fact that we pissed on it is.

I never saw any tapes. I have always been against torturing prisoners because I believe it is against the law of the land, as delineated in the Un Convention regarding torture and inhumane treatment, of which we are a signatory.

But if waterboarding is NOT torture, who's pissing on it? (btw, I do agree that the ends justify the means and such statements are wrong.) When Congress has had the opportunities to declare that waterboarding is torture, they've declined.

[retiredman]

But if waterboarding is NOT torture, who's pissing on it? (btw, I do agree that the ends justify the means and such statements are wrong.) When Congress has had the opportunities to declare that waterboarding is torture, they've declined.

Kathianne. We have been around this a few laps already. We have previously agreed to disagree about whether waterboarding is torture or not. Clearly, if waterboarding unambiguously was allowed by the UN treaty in question, there would not be a constitutional issue. Let's just leave our disagreement as is.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. We have been around this a few laps already. We have previously agreed to disagree about whether waterboarding is torture or not. Clearly, if waterboarding unambiguously was allowed by the UN treaty in question, there would not be a constitutional issue. Let's just leave our disagreement as is.

Agreed, but at the same time, if one does not define it as you do, as Congress hasn't, it would not be pissing on the constitution.

[gabosaurus]

I believe Acts would make a great terrorist leader. His viewpoints in this thread come surprisingly close to those listed in the "manuals" found among the possessions of one of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Is Acts actually an undercover Muslim cleric, sent to infiltrate this message board? I am starting to wonder.

[mrg666]

I believe Acts would make a great terrorist leader. His viewpoints in this thread come surprisingly close to those listed in the "manuals" found among the possessions of one of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Is Acts actually an undercover Muslim cleric, sent to infiltrate this message board? I am starting to wonder.

now you are being silly

martin and for that matter any member here is allowed to have opinions we may not all agree with anyone elses opinions , but we should respect there opinions .
he is not preaching anything only expressing an opinion

[mrg666]

that was a dupe please delete this]

[Classact]

We will never win any war, ever again... unless we get rid of rules of engagement, stop trying our young men and women, for every minor infraction, and do everything we can, including torture, bombing, whatever neccesary to win.

Is it really better to lose and feel elitest about ourselves, or win and feeling bad that we had to do whatever was neccesary to win, but proud that we defended the rights of our children, our friends, our country to survive, and knowing we did what we thought was best, what was neccesary, and feeling realistic about the situation that we had no choice, but to win or have our throats slit/be on a prayer rug.

I say victory is our only option, and whatever it takes to win, we dont have the luxury of being snooty elitest snobs, who thinks were better then anyone/everyone, we have to be the tough, mean, evil, sons of bitches who won the god dam war.

Does anyone think we need did whatever was neccesary to win wwII?

Sometimes, you have to do the WRONG thing, for the RIGHT reasonI watched Dirty Harry on the History Chanel with my son yesterday, they broke into the movie and explained the Warren Court and the scene on the football field where Harry was crushing the bad guys injured leg as he asked where the bad guy had the girl buried alive... The bad guy, over and over insisted he had his rights and throughout the movie Harry asked, what about the rights of the victim? At the end of the movie Harry, disgusted, just after killing the bad guy threw his badge into the lake. Guess that says it all... America just isn't worth defending if you give the bad guy too many rights.

[Gaffer]

The rule of law. In other words placing law on a pedestal above everything. Right or wrong its the law. And its everything that is wrong in this country. The rule of common sense should be on that pedestal. Common sense first and then the law. But common sense has been removed.

Common sense says it may not be nice but it is necessary. The law says you cannot do it at all, even for self preservation.

If your life and the lives of your family hang on which of these rules should prevail which would you chose?

[retiredman]

The rule of law. In other words placing law on a pedestal above everything. Right or wrong its the law. And its everything that is wrong in this country. The rule of common sense should be on that pedestal. Common sense first and then the law. But common sense has been removed.

Common sense says it may not be nice but it is necessary. The law says you cannot do it at all, even for self preservation.

If your life and the lives of your family hang on which of these rules should prevail which would you chose?
If it is the consensus of Americans that certain laws no longer make sense, then we have a process available to us to change those laws and to abrograte those treaties that we no longer agree with.

[Classact]

If it is the consensus of Americans that certain laws no longer make sense, then we have a process available to us to change those laws and to abrograte those treaties that we no longer agree with.The masses do not demand change until it is the angry mob with pitch forks time. The governed is docile to the government and the government's rules until the water gets up to the nose.

Examples, terrorism has been ongoing with American casualties for decades but the government didn't take any action until two major skyscrapers fell in NY city. There were incidents in Europe of US generals being fired on by terror groups with RPG's on the way to work since the 70's... The US Marine Corps peacekeeper barracks in Lebanon, the numerous US Embassies... the USS Cole, Black Hawk Down... but then the water hit the nose when the planes hit the towers and sanity returned to the people... it was not a police problem and the government had let them down.

The same was true in the President Carter administration when the Iranians held the hostages and the gas prices hit all time highs... Carter would have been overthrown if an election wasn't around the corner... the people were fed up with weak spineless government!

Please join in on the debate topic People of Color because the definition of culture evolution is what is defining this topic. The law above the people... People create governments and accept laws for one reason only and that reason is to achieve an expected norm where they can live in peace and thrive as they strive for a better life. If a government and law restricts the ability to maintain their norm then when the cause reaches the nose it will be discarded... Because terrorists haven't destroyed a major city yet, you have an argument... but, once a major city is destroyed your position and the law will be discarded like laws limiting sex to missionary position.

[retiredman]

The masses do not demand change until it is the angry mob with pitch forks time. The governed is docile to the government and the government's rules until the water gets up to the nose.

Examples, terrorism has been ongoing with American casualties for decades but the government didn't take any action until two major skyscrapers fell in NY city. There were incidents in Europe of US generals being fired on by terror groups with RPG's on the way to work since the 70's... The US Marine Corps peacekeeper barracks in Lebanon, the numerous US Embassies... the USS Cole, Black Hawk Down... but then the water hit the nose when the planes hit the towers and sanity returned to the people... it was not a police problem and the government had let them down.

The same was true in the President Carter administration when the Iranians held the hostages and the gas prices hit all time highs... Carter would have been overthrown if an election wasn't around the corner... the people were fed up with weak spineless government!

Please join in on the debate topic People of Color because the definition of culture evolution is what is defining this topic. The law above the people... People create governments and accept laws for one reason only and that reason is to achieve an expected norm where they can live in peace and thrive as they strive for a better life. If a government and law restricts the ability to maintain their norm then when the cause reaches the nose it will be discarded... Because terrorists haven't destroyed a major city yet, you have an argument... but, once a major city is destroyed your position and the law will be discarded like laws limiting sex to missionary position.

America signed the UN treaty on torture and inhumane treatment during the Reagan administration. If the treaty was not in our interests, why wouldn't the republican president and his republican lapdog congress have simply abrogated it sometime during 2001-2007?

[Kathianne]

I agree there is a process. I've always felt that if the people make their will known, the government would respond. Well they have on immigration, the government is hoping that they can do it when the interest wans.

Now we have a Congress that thinks with gas prices taking a larger and larger chunk of our salaries, that would be a nifty product to drastically tax. You know, to get us to 'cut down' on our dependency. Exactly whose fault is it that we have not developed the resources at home? Oh yea, while many a Congress, (not just this one), can ignore literally hundreds of thousands of citizens on one issue, they respond in knee jerk fashion to the much smaller environmental groups.

The rule of law is primary in the system we were taught and have lived under for many years now. Our governmental leaders though, should re-read the Declaration of Independence, especially:


governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

[Gaffer]

If it is the consensus of Americans that certain laws no longer make sense, then we have a process available to us to change those laws and to abrograte those treaties that we no longer agree with.

nice dance step.

[retiredman]

nice dance step.

your option is to simply ignore laws, even when we have a process to change them or eliminate them? how troglodytic!

[Classact]

America signed the UN treaty on torture and inhumane treatment during the Reagan administration. If the treaty was not in our interests, why wouldn't the republican president and his republican lapdog congress have simply abrogated it sometime during 2001-2007?I don't understand why you specify international law when we have US Federal Laws that prohibit torture:


U.S. Law

The United States has incorporated international prohibitions against torture and mistreatment of persons in custody into its domestic law. The United States has reported to the Committee Against Torture that: “Every act of torture within the meaning of the Convention is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes. Such prosecutions do in fact occur in appropriate circumstances. Torture cannot be justified by exceptional circumstances, nor can it be excused on the basis of an order from a superior officer. “

Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court-martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134).

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death.

Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law.

The US government does not torture persons in the government's custody. Period...

[Monkeybone]

how we fight wars is one of the things that i am very torn about. on one hand i agree very much with the 'do whatever it takes to win' , decimate, kill kill kill! point of view. but then we get to the other hand. and that part says, 'well, if we can't hold ourselves back then how can we expect anyone else to'

but i also look at it (sadly) that the only thing that these radicals seem to understand is violence. so how are we supposed to handle that? but at the same time, i don't really see sleep depravation or uncomfortable temps, or lack of food as torture. if there is no lasting "damage", then why should it fall under torture? it's not like we are breaking fingers or cutting on them.

[Monkeybone]

act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering

is this how they say waterboarding is torture then? cuz it freaks them out with the instinct that they are drowning?

[Classact]

how we fight wars is one of the things that i am very torn about. on one hand i agree very much with the 'do whatever it takes to win' , decimate, kill kill kill! point of view. but then we get to the other hand. and that part says, 'well, if we can't hold ourselves back then how can we expect anyone else to'

but i also look at it (sadly) that the only thing that these radicals seem to understand is violence. so how are we supposed to handle that? but at the same time, i don't really see sleep depravation or uncomfortable temps, or lack of food as torture. if there is no lasting "damage", then why should it fall under torture? it's not like we are breaking fingers or cutting on them.This is the legal bar as to what the US Federal government must live within.

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture.Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

If water-boarding or climate conditions or sleep/sound meet this bar they are legal and are not torture. This is the strongest law of all laws and treaties on the link.

The treaties are all less restrictive than the US Federal law stated.

[Dilloduck]

is this how they say waterboarding is torture then? cuz it freaks them out with the instinct that they are drowning?

That's my take on it-----It's too scary for American troops to be subjected to ( plus it works ). If Bush wasn't president no one would care. (imho)

[Classact]

That's my take on it-----It's too scary for American troops to be subjected to ( plus it works ). If Bush wasn't president no one would care. (imho)The Human Rights folks would wring their hands regardless who was in charge I think... The point is under the Law of War there are limitations that countries agree to, and while we did not agree to the changes to the laws of war in the 1970's protocols America has the bolded standard I quoted in US law.

What are some of the things that America objected to in the 70's protocols? We want to retain the right to consider persons not wearing uniform as Unlawful Combatants, we reserve the right to use land mines in war, we reserve the right to fire bomb cities in war if it becomes necessary.

There are many rules in war, like it is unlawful to use sound or light that leaves the enemy deaf or blind... perhaps this is the basis of defining torture... being cold or hot is a normal human condition of war, no or little sleep is a norm in war, loud repetitive noise is a norm in war so perhaps lawyers look at limits from objective viewpoints?

[Gaffer]

your option is to simply ignore laws, even when we have a process to change them or eliminate them? how troglodytic!

No my opinion is common sense should have sway over all laws. Laws are for governing a people not telling people when they can take action or what action to take. Lawyers and libs want laws that control everything we think and say and do.

If it makes sense do it. Someone like you who doesn't like it will try to make a law against it so it can't be done again, even though common sense says it needs to be repeated regularly.

[retiredman]

No my opinion is common sense should have sway over all laws. Laws are for governing a people not telling people when they can take action or what action to take. Lawyers and libs want laws that control everything we think and say and do.

If it makes sense do it. Someone like you who doesn't like it will try to make a law against it so it can't be done again, even though common sense says it needs to be repeated regularly.

methinks the founding fathers would disagree with you.

[Classact]

methinks the founding fathers would disagree with you.What would make you think that? The treaty of Tripoli was the only treaty re-written... Why was there no outrage from living founders as treaties with the American Indians were broken?

[gabosaurus]

I am also expressing an opinion. I think Martin would make an excellent Mullah. He certainly has the hate level for the job.

[retiredman]

What would make you think that? The treaty of Tripoli was the only treaty re-written... Why was there no outrage from living founders as treaties with the American Indians were broken?

what would make me think that the founding fathers who wrote that treaties entered into become the law of the land - who drafted a constitution that makes us a country with the rule of law - would not agree with the idea that laws need not be enforced if individuals think that their own common sense is more appropriate? I am not even sure how to answer that question!

and how can you say that there was no outrage from them?

[Classact]

what would make me think that the founding fathers who wrote that treaties entered into become the law of the land - who drafted a constitution that makes us a country with the rule of law - would not agree with the idea that laws need not be enforced if individuals think that their own common sense is more appropriate? I am not even sure how to answer that question!

and how can you say that there was no outrage from them?I was speaking to treaties and how treaties went down in early years following the ratification of the constitution. As for law of the land, the founders adopted colony common law judged by the people that wrote the law that fully understood the spirit and intent of the law. The founders established a system where the most prominent members of each state would select the President and the Senate limiting laws that could be passed by the House of Representatives that was elected by the common property owners. Likewise, the founders assured the hand selected President and Senate chose the members of the Supreme Court that would settle laws created by the individual states.

The power of making laws was actually given to the people in the states, the federal government had little need to make law. If you disagree then list federal laws made early in the US government at federal level. The intent was to have a central government to function as something similar to the European Union for purposes mainly to provide unified security. Each state viewed the word state as country equal to France or Germany with their own constitutions. There were very limited federal responsibilities as is clearly noted in the constitution where it is indicated working federal was almost considered a part time job. This is still quite apparent today when you look at the schedule of the Congress... a part time job with a lot of days off.

It wasn't until the early 1900's that the federal government was noticed by the group of states as a power with the exception of the Civil War. In early America the person selected to run the stock exchange in NY City was more powerful than congress, house and senate combined.

[5stringJeff]

We will never win any war, ever again... unless we get rid of rules of engagement, stop trying our young men and women, for every minor infraction, and do everything we can, including torture, bombing, whatever neccesary to win.

Is it really better to lose and feel elitest about ourselves, or win and feeling bad that we had to do whatever was neccesary to win, but proud that we defended the rights of our children, our friends, our country to survive, and knowing we did what we thought was best, what was neccesary, and feeling realistic about the situation that we had no choice, but to win or have our throats slit/be on a prayer rug.

I say victory is our only option, and whatever it takes to win, we dont have the luxury of being snooty elitest snobs, who thinks were better then anyone/everyone, we have to be the tough, mean, evil, sons of bitches who won the god dam war.

Does anyone think we need did whatever was neccesary to win wwII?

Sometimes, you have to do the WRONG thing, for the RIGHT reason

Your thinking is way off line. Rules of engagement protect civilians on the battlefield as well as our own soldiers.

[actsnoblemartin]

thats a good point, i didnt consider that.

shouldnt the rules of engagement be looked at every once in awhile ti make sure they are neccesary and effective



Your thinking is way off line. Rules of engagement protect civilians on the battlefield as well as our own soldiers.

[retiredman]

thats a good point, i didnt consider that.

shouldnt the rules of engagement be looked at every once in awhile ti make sure they are neccesary and effective

Rules of Engagement are internal DoD policies and are reviewed constantly... and adjusted.

The Rules of War as codified by the various Geneva Conventions evolve more slowly, but even they do change - 1864, 1907, 1929, 1949, 1977, 2005.

Professional military officers learn them and abide by them.

[Kathianne]

Rules of Engagement are internal DoD policies and are reviewed constantly... and adjusted.

The Rules of War as codified by the various Geneva Conventions evolve more slowly, but even they do change - 1864, 1907, 1929, 1949, 1977, 2005.

Professional military officers learn them and abide by them.

Very cool, I thought the began in '49. Thank you, I learned something.

[retiredman]

Very cool, I thought the began in '49. Thank you, I learned something.

you're welcome...and actually the GC's have not really "changed" as much as they have "expanded" The first one dealt almost solely with sick and wounded on the battlefield, the second added shipwrecked, the third dealt with POW's, the fourth with treatment of civilians in the battlefield, the '77 protocol had to do with refugees, and the 2005 had to do with adopting a univeral Red Cross symbol (a red diamond).

[actsnoblemartin]

Thank you very much, you are a wise man.


Rules of Engagement are internal DoD policies and are reviewed constantly... and adjusted.

The Rules of War as codified by the various Geneva Conventions evolve more slowly, but even they do change - 1864, 1907, 1929, 1949, 1977, 2005.

Professional military officers learn them and abide by them.