You've got this wrong, including that nonsense about "systematically disappearing people." This isn't a question of some South American Junta oppressing poor peasants. It is a war against the barbarians of our age.
Guerrilla tactics were known when the treaties were drawn up so your comment about uniforms is nonsense. It takes very little to comply with the treaty. Armbands, a chain of command, and waging war lawfully is about what it takes. You're claiming that is too much? Nonsense. Tell me, what forces ISIS to behead people or burn them alive? Do you think that it is too much to expect them to not commit atrocities? That isn't a theoretical question, the issue is one played out daily by those barbarians.
Guantanamo isn't a secret prison, it is well known. The prisoners even receive Red Cross visits. But if the enemy combatants want the full rights and protections of the treaty then they need to abide by it. That is a basic enforcement mechanism built into it. Maybe they could start small, like simply not burning people alive and behead them. They could work their way up to no mass rape and sex slavery.
Far too many people here are outraged when a terrorist leader is killed by a missile as if it were an epic crime of the ages to prevent those evil men from attacking innocent civilians. But those same people who are outraged about terrorists being killed are often wholly indifferent to mass rape, murder, and torture of captives, hostages, and innocents by al Qaeda, ISIS, and the like. How do you think that will go? How do you think it will go now that more and more of them are showing up in Europe? Once the "oxen being gored" are European I expect some "rapid evolution" of views.
Do you know what ISIS is considering doing to captured pilots? (You know they burned one alive, right?) It is an old practice of the Turkish Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire: death by impaling.
Targets in Baghdad were bombed, Baghdad as a whole wasn't. The US didn't profit from bombing Baghdad, so that is nonsense. Citing Haliburton doesn't make the case stronger.
Less than 800 prisoners in total have been held in Guantanamo, and at present there are only about 120 left there. They have been held there legally. You're taking nonsense.
It is stupid to think that Assange is going to end up in Guantanamo. He isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda, nor does anyone seriously assert that, and those are the only people that end up in Guantanamo.
I can't spare you or take from you a quality you possess.
They are in a prisoner of war camp. Criminal courts are completely irrelevant regarding prisoner of war status. Not even the same body of law. Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. The question is, are they enemy combatants? Once again, not a question of criminal law. No, the term "extra-judicial imprisonment" doesn't apply since it isn't a judicial question to begin with. All that is required is that a competent tribunal approve their detention, and that has occurred.
Would Britain have been helpless in the face of an invading German army unless they littered or something? You know, a criminal offense? Were the German and Italian prisoners held by Britain held illegitimately (minus those held for littering, or rape)?
You might have exhausted this line of thought, do you care to go on about torts committed by al Qaeda and the proper thing is to sue them? Or maybe move on to some admiralty offense? Or perhaps environmental law? I would have to assume that chopping off the heads of Christians in the surf as ISIS have been doing lately is going to mean untreated blood polluting the waters which may be an offense under environmental legislation. Perhaps that environmental outrage will finally stir up people of certain political persuasions against them when the head chopping won't.
I think something like 30% of the "totally innocent" prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay there were released went back to the battlefield and terrorism.
I'm sure. But anyway..... The US doesn't operate by a parliamentary system in which members of parliament become ministers in charge of government ministries after their faction is able for form a government. The executive and legislative branches are completely separate. In the US if the chairman of the House agriculture committee thinks you should be captured or killed I doubt there is much to worry about since he or she has essentially no means to enforce that. Not even the head of the armed services committee could do anything by order. That can't be said if it is the head of the FBI or CIA that says it. And in either case there is always a question of legality. Making war against al Qaeda is one thing, dealing with Assange is completely different. There is zero chance he'll be attacked with a drone by the US government or sent to Gitmo, unless he wants to join al Qaeda or ISIS.
Swedish legal procedures have been discussed here often enough that I have to assume you are engaging in wilful distortion. Before Assange can be tried he has to be charged, before he can be charged under Swedish law he has to be questioned. Questioning him remotely if they expect to change him does no good since he can't be arrested to face Swedish justice. Your insinuation that he would be sent to the US is nonsense, and both Sweden and the UK would have to agree. Only Assange's fantasist supporters then it would be easier to extradite him from the UK to Sweden and then to the US when both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to the extradition than to simply extradite him from the UK where only the UK has to agree. For the UK to agree there would have to be a warrant from the US and charges, and nonesuch exists.
The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay aren't there because of "extra-judicial imprisonment." They are being held prisoners of war in the conflict against al Qaeda and its associates. Assange isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda. There is no way he is going to end up there.
Or did somebody share a "pinky swear secret" with you, dear, dear "fellow patriot"? Please good sir, share with us your news.... make that evidence?
Former officials, candidates for office, and even current members of the legislature aren't "government officials." They can blow as much smoke and wind as they want, it doesn't constitute policy.
There is essentially no chance any of that will happen. The only people that have been subject to that are either members or associates of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups at war with the US. Assange isn't a member of al Qaeda, or do you have some proof that he is?
Do you really think that? Money lost in damages comes from taxes which mean taxes go up. That means both unhappy voters and less money for city government. That is before you get to the question of a judge overseeing operations of a city and its police force, which is both humiliating and unpleasant for all involved. There is also the question of state involvement: investigations, oversight, prosecution.
Why don't you simply renounce your US citizenship? You'll probably be happier if you do. The next US president will probably be a Republican, and you know you'll hate to visit the country just knowing that. He or she might even get two terms. I doubt you'll survive the anger from it.
The people being collected from "all over the room and loaded into buckets for disposal" are being targeted because they want to commit terrorist attacks that will cause dozens or hundreds of other people to be "collected in buckets for disposal" for every attack they commit. Preventing them from attacking others reduces the number of buckets needed. Innocent people in village markets have a chance at having nice things since they are less likely to be attacked by terrorists. Why do you oppose protecting the innocent?
Local government "kill with (relative) impunity?" Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.
If that was the case there wouldn't be multiple police officers currently facing trial in more than one city, and cities wouldn't care about lawsuits (which have cost some of them dearly).
I'm somewhat interested in visiting the US, but this kind of bullshit would absolutely kill any desire to go there.
It took this? Not our general policy of running around the world tampering with governments, murdering people, and blowing up cities for profit?
In 2012 there were approximately 67,000,000 foreign visitors to the US. It seems likely that they don't have the perspective of a self-hating American that twists issues to show the US as a rotten country, sometimes fabricating things in the process.
I think people are more upset at the perceived risk of getting a barcode tattoo reminiscent of what they used in concentration camps (yeah, I Godwin'ed the thread),
So you basically admit that people are "upset" about an imaginary threat that doesn't currently exist, and is unlikely to ever exist?
... or maybe getting pulled over and shot by a cop for having a broken tail light. Such things really does count against visiting the US compared to taking a week on a beach somewhere else.
We're pretty much still in the same place as the last statement - an imaginary threat. People in the US aren't shot by the police for having a broken tail light. That may be the precursor to a more serious issue, such as someone assaulting a police officer and being shot, but it isn't the cause.
I'm curious, where are these imaginary boogeymen causing you to flee to? Where are these "trouble free" beaches located?
Does the threat of Godzilla keep you from Japan, or the threat of volcanoes keep you from Italy? Does the threat of deportation keep you from Greece?
It took this? Not our general policy of running around the world tampering with governments, murdering people, and blowing up cities for profit?
Those did kill it most of the way, and the "somewhat interested" is conditional on some pretty unlikely things, such as someone else footing the bill for the trip.
Could you explain what killing al Qaeda terrorists with drone strikes in Afghanistan has to do with visiting the US? Which cities do you think the US "blew up for profit"? You seem to be peddling nonsense.
Someone in the car industry needs to stand up and say "There will be no networked computers in my vehicles."
Somebody better find him quick. I'm pretty sure that I've heard that either Google or Apple was creating a driverless car that acknowledge direction by answering, "By your command."
And your claim is nonsense. Consider the case of Vasili Blokhin, for instance. General Vasili Blokhin pressed a "button" (trigger) and killed the Polish army officer corp. (Admittedly he pressed that "button" repeatedly.) This was around the time that the Soviet Union confiscated food from the Ukraine to artificially create a famine and kill 7,000,000 people by the slow death of starvation. (Death was quicker for the people that walked into the grain fields to pluck some grain to eat - they were shot on the spot.)
In March 1940, General Blokhin personally executed all 8,000 of the captured Polish officers on 28 consecutive nights in a basement execution chamber at the Soviet secret police headquarters in Kalinin. The soundproof room was specially constructed for the murders, with a sloping concrete floor and a hose to wash away the blood.
One at a time – 250 a day – each of the Polish officers was led into the room in handcuffs, where Blokhin awaited in a butcher’s apron, cap and shoulder-length leather gloves. Each prisoner was then turned around to face a log wall, and Blokhin would shoot him in the back of the head . . .
The other 14,000 Polish intellectuals captured during the Soviet invasion met a similar fate, although not directly at the hand of General Blokhin.
I just felt a strange disturbance in Di Vorce, as if a million divorce lawyers suddenly yelled out "CHA-CHING!" and then... yelled out "CHA-CHING!" again!
You may recall that it was the civilized world that would have needed to retaliate against Imperial Japan.
The question isn't what some random people in Japan consider to be a war crime, the question is what is the law, and was it violated? If it was violated, were there mitigating circumstances?
How many Rapes of Nanking did the Allies commit? How many Unit 731s did the Allies have that were experimenting on prisoners? Where were the extermination camps of the Allied powers? The Allies had fewer people deserving punishment because they weren't engaging in the sort of wholesale barbarism that were part of the Aixs nation's practices.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got this wrong, including that nonsense about "systematically disappearing people." This isn't a question of some South American Junta oppressing poor peasants. It is a war against the barbarians of our age.
Guerrilla tactics were known when the treaties were drawn up so your comment about uniforms is nonsense. It takes very little to comply with the treaty. Armbands, a chain of command, and waging war lawfully is about what it takes. You're claiming that is too much? Nonsense. Tell me, what forces ISIS to behead people or burn them alive? Do you think that it is too much to expect them to not commit atrocities? That isn't a theoretical question, the issue is one played out daily by those barbarians.
Isis sex slaves: 19 women executed for refusing to have sex with militant fighters
ISIS burns 4 hog-tied men alive in new video
ISIS Declares War On ‘The Cross’: 21 Christians Beheaded in Barbaric New Video from the Islamic State
Guantanamo isn't a secret prison, it is well known. The prisoners even receive Red Cross visits. But if the enemy combatants want the full rights and protections of the treaty then they need to abide by it. That is a basic enforcement mechanism built into it. Maybe they could start small, like simply not burning people alive and behead them. They could work their way up to no mass rape and sex slavery.
Far too many people here are outraged when a terrorist leader is killed by a missile as if it were an epic crime of the ages to prevent those evil men from attacking innocent civilians. But those same people who are outraged about terrorists being killed are often wholly indifferent to mass rape, murder, and torture of captives, hostages, and innocents by al Qaeda, ISIS, and the like. How do you think that will go? How do you think it will go now that more and more of them are showing up in Europe? Once the "oxen being gored" are European I expect some "rapid evolution" of views.
Do you know what ISIS is considering doing to captured pilots? (You know they burned one alive, right?) It is an old practice of the Turkish Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire: death by impaling.
Muslims Are Calling To Revive An Ancient Horrifying Execution Method Against U.S. Led Coalition Pilots
They'll probably put video of it on Youtube.
Targets in Baghdad were bombed, Baghdad as a whole wasn't. The US didn't profit from bombing Baghdad, so that is nonsense. Citing Haliburton doesn't make the case stronger.
You are peddling nonsense.
How fitting that you use the word "zombie" .... I think this deals with that nonsense. Pay special attention to the section "Sweden and extradition".
The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange - Why the “zombie facts” of Assange supporters are wrong
It is about sexual assault, pure and simple.
Less than 800 prisoners in total have been held in Guantanamo, and at present there are only about 120 left there. They have been held there legally. You're taking nonsense.
It is stupid to think that Assange is going to end up in Guantanamo. He isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda, nor does anyone seriously assert that, and those are the only people that end up in Guantanamo.
I can't spare you or take from you a quality you possess.
Ecuador isn't acting in good faith, they are acting on behalf of Assange. They are creating unnecessary hoops for Sweden to jump through.
They are in a prisoner of war camp.
Criminal courts are completely irrelevant regarding prisoner of war status. Not even the same body of law.
Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. The question is, are they enemy combatants? Once again, not a question of criminal law.
No, the term "extra-judicial imprisonment" doesn't apply since it isn't a judicial question to begin with. All that is required is that a competent tribunal approve their detention, and that has occurred.
Would Britain have been helpless in the face of an invading German army unless they littered or something? You know, a criminal offense? Were the German and Italian prisoners held by Britain held illegitimately (minus those held for littering, or rape)?
You might have exhausted this line of thought, do you care to go on about torts committed by al Qaeda and the proper thing is to sue them? Or maybe move on to some admiralty offense? Or perhaps environmental law? I would have to assume that chopping off the heads of Christians in the surf as ISIS have been doing lately is going to mean untreated blood polluting the waters which may be an offense under environmental legislation. Perhaps that environmental outrage will finally stir up people of certain political persuasions against them when the head chopping won't.
I think something like 30% of the "totally innocent" prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay there were released went back to the battlefield and terrorism.
I'm sure. But anyway ..... The US doesn't operate by a parliamentary system in which members of parliament become ministers in charge of government ministries after their faction is able for form a government. The executive and legislative branches are completely separate. In the US if the chairman of the House agriculture committee thinks you should be captured or killed I doubt there is much to worry about since he or she has essentially no means to enforce that. Not even the head of the armed services committee could do anything by order. That can't be said if it is the head of the FBI or CIA that says it. And in either case there is always a question of legality. Making war against al Qaeda is one thing, dealing with Assange is completely different. There is zero chance he'll be attacked with a drone by the US government or sent to Gitmo, unless he wants to join al Qaeda or ISIS.
And that means you think politicians are happy to lose elections. Right . . .
Swedish legal procedures have been discussed here often enough that I have to assume you are engaging in wilful distortion. Before Assange can be tried he has to be charged, before he can be charged under Swedish law he has to be questioned. Questioning him remotely if they expect to change him does no good since he can't be arrested to face Swedish justice. Your insinuation that he would be sent to the US is nonsense, and both Sweden and the UK would have to agree. Only Assange's fantasist supporters then it would be easier to extradite him from the UK to Sweden and then to the US when both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to the extradition than to simply extradite him from the UK where only the UK has to agree. For the UK to agree there would have to be a warrant from the US and charges, and nonesuch exists.
The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay aren't there because of "extra-judicial imprisonment." They are being held prisoners of war in the conflict against al Qaeda and its associates. Assange isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda. There is no way he is going to end up there.
Or did somebody share a "pinky swear secret" with you, dear, dear "fellow patriot"? Please good sir, share with us your news .... make that evidence?
Former officials, candidates for office, and even current members of the legislature aren't "government officials." They can blow as much smoke and wind as they want, it doesn't constitute policy.
There is essentially no chance any of that will happen. The only people that have been subject to that are either members or associates of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups at war with the US. Assange isn't a member of al Qaeda, or do you have some proof that he is?
Snowden isn't Assange. Assange isn't wanted by the US. The plane wasn't grounded, it wasn't allowed to transit national airspace.
Your facts are irrelevant and your theory is wrong. Try thinner foil for your hat, or maybe just take it off.
Do you really think that? Money lost in damages comes from taxes which mean taxes go up. That means both unhappy voters and less money for city government. That is before you get to the question of a judge overseeing operations of a city and its police force, which is both humiliating and unpleasant for all involved. There is also the question of state involvement: investigations, oversight, prosecution.
Why don't you simply renounce your US citizenship? You'll probably be happier if you do. The next US president will probably be a Republican, and you know you'll hate to visit the country just knowing that. He or she might even get two terms. I doubt you'll survive the anger from it.
The people being collected from "all over the room and loaded into buckets for disposal" are being targeted because they want to commit terrorist attacks that will cause dozens or hundreds of other people to be "collected in buckets for disposal" for every attack they commit. Preventing them from attacking others reduces the number of buckets needed. Innocent people in village markets have a chance at having nice things since they are less likely to be attacked by terrorists. Why do you oppose protecting the innocent?
Local government "kill with (relative) impunity?" Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.
If that was the case there wouldn't be multiple police officers currently facing trial in more than one city, and cities wouldn't care about lawsuits (which have cost some of them dearly).
Not all killing is murder. It is legitimate to defend yourself from enemies that want to kill you and others.
I'm somewhat interested in visiting the US, but this kind of bullshit would absolutely kill any desire to go there.
It took this? Not our general policy of running around the world tampering with governments, murdering people, and blowing up cities for profit?
In 2012 there were approximately 67,000,000 foreign visitors to the US. It seems likely that they don't have the perspective of a self-hating American that twists issues to show the US as a rotten country, sometimes fabricating things in the process.
I think people are more upset at the perceived risk of getting a barcode tattoo reminiscent of what they used in concentration camps (yeah, I Godwin'ed the thread),
So you basically admit that people are "upset" about an imaginary threat that doesn't currently exist, and is unlikely to ever exist?
... or maybe getting pulled over and shot by a cop for having a broken tail light. Such things really does count against visiting the US compared to taking a week on a beach somewhere else.
We're pretty much still in the same place as the last statement - an imaginary threat. People in the US aren't shot by the police for having a broken tail light. That may be the precursor to a more serious issue, such as someone assaulting a police officer and being shot, but it isn't the cause.
I'm curious, where are these imaginary boogeymen causing you to flee to? Where are these "trouble free" beaches located?
Does the threat of Godzilla keep you from Japan, or the threat of volcanoes keep you from Italy? Does the threat of deportation keep you from Greece?
It took this? Not our general policy of running around the world tampering with governments, murdering people, and blowing up cities for profit?
Those did kill it most of the way, and the "somewhat interested" is conditional on some pretty unlikely things, such as someone else footing the bill for the trip.
Could you explain what killing al Qaeda terrorists with drone strikes in Afghanistan has to do with visiting the US? Which cities do you think the US "blew up for profit"? You seem to be peddling nonsense.
Someone in the car industry needs to stand up and say "There will be no networked computers in my vehicles."
Somebody better find him quick. I'm pretty sure that I've heard that either Google or Apple was creating a driverless car that acknowledge direction by answering, "By your command."
The US military is the only entity that has actually ever carried out attacks like this
I would say his concern is well founded.
And your claim is nonsense. Consider the case of Vasili Blokhin, for instance. General Vasili Blokhin pressed a "button" (trigger) and killed the Polish army officer corp. (Admittedly he pressed that "button" repeatedly.) This was around the time that the Soviet Union confiscated food from the Ukraine to artificially create a famine and kill 7,000,000 people by the slow death of starvation. (Death was quicker for the people that walked into the grain fields to pluck some grain to eat - they were shot on the spot.)
The Katyn Massacre
In March 1940, General Blokhin personally executed all 8,000 of the captured Polish officers on 28 consecutive nights in a basement execution chamber at the Soviet secret police headquarters in Kalinin. The soundproof room was specially constructed for the murders, with a sloping concrete floor and a hose to wash away the blood.
One at a time – 250 a day – each of the Polish officers was led into the room in handcuffs, where Blokhin awaited in a butcher’s apron, cap and shoulder-length leather gloves. Each prisoner was then turned around to face a log wall, and Blokhin would shoot him in the back of the head . . .
The other 14,000 Polish intellectuals captured during the Soviet invasion met a similar fate, although not directly at the hand of General Blokhin.
Admittedly this is only a drop in the bucket of the 100,000,000 people killed by Communist regimes, but it is revealing.
I just felt a strange disturbance in Di Vorce, as if a million divorce lawyers suddenly yelled out "CHA-CHING!" and then... yelled out "CHA-CHING!" again!
FTFY
Smoking Guns: Russian Separatists Shot Down Malaysian Flight MH17
Unfortunately there are no "take backs" on this.
You may recall that it was the civilized world that would have needed to retaliate against Imperial Japan.
The question isn't what some random people in Japan consider to be a war crime, the question is what is the law, and was it violated? If it was violated, were there mitigating circumstances?
How many Rapes of Nanking did the Allies commit? How many Unit 731s did the Allies have that were experimenting on prisoners? Where were the extermination camps of the Allied powers? The Allies had fewer people deserving punishment because they weren't engaging in the sort of wholesale barbarism that were part of the Aixs nation's practices.