| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"i2p6 west" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2005 07:46:42 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
The current Iraq war is unethical, illegal, and unChristian. They are to
be commended for taking such a couragious stand.
...
Oppose the current War in Iraq but Support the Returning Veteran!
How does one oppose the murder, yet Support the Murderers?
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
29 Aug 2005 09:36:27 PM |
|
|
"i2p6 west" <nospam@rr.net> wrote in message
news:11h4mmqj8j3hp93@corp.supernews.com...
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
The current Iraq war is unethical, illegal, and unChristian. They are to
be commended for taking such a couragious stand.
...
Oppose the current War in Iraq but Support the Returning Veteran!
How does one oppose the murder, yet Support the Murderers?
The troops are not the murderers, they're the weapon.
The one wielding the weapon is the murderer.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "i2p6 west" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
29 Aug 2005 09:55:17 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"i2p6 west" <nospam@rr.net> wrote in message
news:11h4mmqj8j3hp93@corp.supernews.com...
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
The current Iraq war is unethical, illegal, and unChristian. They are to
be commended for taking such a couragious stand.
...
Oppose the current War in Iraq but Support the Returning Veteran!
How does one oppose the murder, yet Support the Murderers?
The troops are not the murderers, they're the weapon.
The one wielding the weapon is the murderer.
Yes, the troops are wielding weapons, doing the actual killing.
I suppose you think mafia hit men are not murderers either.
It can't be whitewashed. U.S. soldiers do not give up moral responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
30 Aug 2005 01:09:35 AM |
|
|
"i2p6 west" <nospam@rr.net> wrote in message
news:11h7ik16ce9dv48@corp.supernews.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"i2p6 west" <nospam@rr.net> wrote in message
news:11h4mmqj8j3hp93@corp.supernews.com...
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
The current Iraq war is unethical, illegal, and unChristian. They are to
be commended for taking such a couragious stand.
...
Oppose the current War in Iraq but Support the Returning Veteran!
How does one oppose the murder, yet Support the Murderers?
The troops are not the murderers, they're the weapon.
The one wielding the weapon is the murderer.
Yes, the troops are wielding weapons, doing the actual killing.
Yes, you may, if you wish, deliberately misinterpret what I said so as to
avoid addressing it.
When we're dealing with the clash of nations, the governments are treated as
individuals, and their armies as weapons. So the government is the weapon
wielder, and the army is the weapon. You can pretend that you don't
understand this, or that it is not a valid viewpoint, but that means you
cannot address the issue.
I suppose you think mafia hit men are not murderers either.
Are you suggesting that we should not have an army? If you're NOT suggesting
that, then please stop pretending that there's no difference.
It can't be whitewashed. U.S. soldiers do not give up moral
responsibility.
Good point. The "I vas only followving Oders" defense didn't work for the
Nazis at Nuremberg. But that was for the soldiers accused of war crimes,
like death camp guards and such.
But simply shooting the enemy in combat is not a war crime, and soldier need
to be able to do that or the army can't function. But if soldiers act
outside the "laws of war" and commit war crimes, they should be punished.
Now, if you're thinking, "No armies? Great!" that has little value when the
nation next to you attacks with theirs.
So, since an army is currently necessary for my survival, and the soldiers
must be allowed to shoot the enemy to be an effective army, I must support
the troops. But the entity weilding the army, the government, better utilize
the army only when absolutely necessary, and for the right reasons. Self
defense is one such reason.
If the government uses the army improperly, it is not the fault of the
soldiers. It is the fault of the government. In the case of the US, it is
ultimately the fault of the voters, since the government is supposed to
answer to the people.
Currently, I think the government is using the army for its own selfish
reasons, and the administration needs to be removed and tried for war
crimes.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rita" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
30 Aug 2005 07:36:55 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:1u6dnTWPTMyGZY7eRVn-tw@io.com...
"i2p6 west" <nospam@rr.net> wrote in message
news:11h7ik16ce9dv48@corp.supernews.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"i2p6 west" <nospam@rr.net> wrote in message
news:11h4mmqj8j3hp93@corp.supernews.com...
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
The current Iraq war is unethical, illegal, and unChristian. They are
to
be commended for taking such a couragious stand.
...
Oppose the current War in Iraq but Support the Returning Veteran!
How does one oppose the murder, yet Support the Murderers?
The troops are not the murderers, they're the weapon.
The one wielding the weapon is the murderer.
Yes, the troops are wielding weapons, doing the actual killing.
Yes, you may, if you wish, deliberately misinterpret what I said so as to
avoid addressing it.
Yes, that's what ip2groupie does best. He's "violently" anti-war to the
point of all-out hypocrisy. He also ignores laws concerning what is and is
not murder -- as if murder itself is not purely a legal term.
Rita
When we're dealing with the clash of nations, the governments are treated
as individuals, and their armies as weapons. So the government is the
weapon wielder, and the army is the weapon. You can pretend that you don't
understand this, or that it is not a valid viewpoint, but that means you
cannot address the issue.
I suppose you think mafia hit men are not murderers either.
Are you suggesting that we should not have an army? If you're NOT
suggesting that, then please stop pretending that there's no difference.
It can't be whitewashed. U.S. soldiers do not give up moral
responsibility.
Good point. The "I vas only followving Oders" defense didn't work for the
Nazis at Nuremberg. But that was for the soldiers accused of war crimes,
like death camp guards and such.
But simply shooting the enemy in combat is not a war crime, and soldier
need to be able to do that or the army can't function. But if soldiers act
outside the "laws of war" and commit war crimes, they should be punished.
Now, if you're thinking, "No armies? Great!" that has little value when
the nation next to you attacks with theirs.
So, since an army is currently necessary for my survival, and the soldiers
must be allowed to shoot the enemy to be an effective army, I must support
the troops. But the entity weilding the army, the government, better
utilize the army only when absolutely necessary, and for the right
reasons. Self defense is one such reason.
If the government uses the army improperly, it is not the fault of the
soldiers. It is the fault of the government. In the case of the US, it is
ultimately the fault of the voters, since the government is supposed to
answer to the people.
Currently, I think the government is using the army for its own selfish
reasons, and the administration needs to be removed and tried for war
crimes.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "i2p6 west" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
30 Aug 2005 01:56:09 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"i2p6 west" wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"i2p6 west" wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
The current Iraq war is unethical, illegal, and unChristian. They are to
be commended for taking such a couragious stand.
...
Oppose the current War in Iraq but Support the Returning Veteran!
How does one oppose the murder, yet Support the Murderers?
[snippage]
If the government uses the army improperly, it is not the fault of the
soldiers. It is the fault of the government. In the case of the US, it is
ultimately the fault of the voters, since the government is supposed to
answer to the people.
Currently, I think the government is using the army for its own selfish
reasons, and the administration needs to be removed and tried for war
crimes.
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes, yet you are
attempting to defend them, that they should continue.
U.S. soldiers do not give up their moral responsibility...ever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 AM |
|
|
"i2p6 west" <nospam@rr.net> wrote in message
news:11h80nhfi2h7ac6@corp.supernews.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"i2p6 west" wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"i2p6 west" wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
The current Iraq war is unethical, illegal, and unChristian. They are
to
be commended for taking such a couragious stand.
...
Oppose the current War in Iraq but Support the Returning Veteran!
How does one oppose the murder, yet Support the Murderers?
[snippage]
If the government uses the army improperly, it is not the fault of the
soldiers. It is the fault of the government. In the case of the US, it is
ultimately the fault of the voters, since the government is supposed to
answer to the people.
Currently, I think the government is using the army for its own selfish
reasons, and the administration needs to be removed and tried for war
crimes.
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes, yet you are
attempting to defend them, that they should continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm saying the
government is committing war crimes.
U.S. soldiers do not give up their moral responsibility...ever.
What, exactly, IS the responsibility of a US soldier? What is the
responsibility of ANY soldier?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
30 Aug 2005 12:40:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes, yet you are
attempting to defend them, that they should continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm saying the
government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable laws that
prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you cannot claim that
something is a 'war crime.'
U.S. soldiers do not give up their moral responsibility...ever.
What, exactly, IS the responsibility of a US soldier? What is the
responsibility of ANY soldier?
The duty of an American soldier is to obey all lawful orders. Since
committing a 'war crime' would also involve violating US Law - any
order to commit a war crime would be an 'unlawful order' and the
soldier is therefore accountable for violating that specific law.
What this means is that if you clam that the US government is
committing a criminal act - you are also accusing the soldiers of
committing that same act.
As a result we (soldiers) have come to regard the 'oppose the war but
support the troops' crowd as only pretending to support the troops.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
30 Aug 2005 05:28:24 PM |
|
|
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes, yet you are
attempting to defend them, that they should continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm saying the
government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable laws that
prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you cannot claim that
something is a 'war crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective ***** by not
declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or laws of war. As
far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such thing as a war crime.
Anything goes.
In my opinion, much of what is going on should be considered war crimes. We
should be acting according to the Geneva Convention. This is not to protect
the enemy, it's to protect our own soldiers.
U.S. soldiers do not give up their moral responsibility...ever.
What, exactly, IS the responsibility of a US soldier? What is the
responsibility of ANY soldier?
The duty of an American soldier is to obey all lawful orders. Since
committing a 'war crime' would also involve violating US Law - any
order to commit a war crime would be an 'unlawful order' and the
soldier is therefore accountable for violating that specific law.
Sorry, shooting your enemy is against US law, but is expected behavior on
the battlefield. So clearly violating US law is NOT the same as committing a
war crime.
What this means is that if you clam that the US government is
committing a criminal act - you are also accusing the soldiers of
committing that same act.
No. If the president stands up during a state dinner and shoots the
ambassador of the enemy country, that's considered a crime. When the soldier
on the battlefield shoots the soldier of the enemy country, he gets a medal.
So clearly it's NOT the same thing.
As a result we (soldiers) have come to regard the 'oppose the war but
support the troops' crowd as only pretending to support the troops.
If you wish to willfully misinterpret other peoples positions, there's
nothing they can do to stop you.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
31 Aug 2005 08:23:44 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes, yet you are
attempting to defend them, that they should continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm saying the
government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable laws that
prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you cannot claim that
something is a 'war crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective ***** by not
declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or laws of war. As
far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such thing as a war crime.
Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of war is,
itself, a war crime.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 04:34:03 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes, yet you are
attempting to defend them, that they should continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm saying the
government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable laws that
prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you cannot claim that
something is a 'war crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective ***** by not
declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or laws of war. As
far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such thing as a war crime.
Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of war is,
itself, a war crime.
Since war was declared, what's your fucking point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 08:56:29 AM |
|
|
Daniel wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes, yet you are
attempting to defend them, that they should continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm saying the
government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable laws that
prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you cannot claim that
something is a 'war crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective ***** by not
declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or laws of war. As
far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such thing as a war crime.
Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of war is,
itself, a war crime.
Since war was declared, what's your fucking point?
Actually, it was not. If I am mistaken, certanly you can provide a link to Congress'
declaration (after all, the Constitution VERY CLEARLY STATES that only Congress may
declare war.)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 09:26:36 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:4317088D.7ABB7706@serv.net:
Daniel wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove
underscore)> wrote in message
news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes,
yet you are attempting to defend them, that they should
continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm
saying the government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable
laws that prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you
cannot claim that something is a 'war crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective *****
by not declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or
laws of war. As far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such
thing as a war crime. Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of
war is, itself, a war crime.
Since war was declared, what's your fucking point?
Actually, it was not. If I am mistaken, certanly you can provide a
link to Congress' declaration (after all, the Constitution VERY
CLEARLY STATES that only Congress may declare war.)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf
Or:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R25435B9B
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
I think if we had a three-word message right now it’d be, ‘We can do
better.’
- Howard Dean
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 10:34:49 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:4317088D.7ABB7706@serv.net:
Daniel wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove
underscore)> wrote in message
news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes,
yet you are attempting to defend them, that they should
continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm
saying the government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable
laws that prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you
cannot claim that something is a 'war crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective *****
by not declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or
laws of war. As far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such
thing as a war crime. Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of
war is, itself, a war crime.
Since war was declared, what's your fucking point?
Actually, it was not. If I am mistaken, certanly you can provide a
link to Congress' declaration (after all, the Constitution VERY
CLEARLY STATES that only Congress may declare war.)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf
Or:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R25435B9B
Both links return "No such document." Just like I said.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 11:41:54 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:43171F99.45757308@serv.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:4317088D.7ABB7706@serv.net:
Daniel wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove
underscore)> wrote in message
news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes,
yet you are attempting to defend them, that they should
continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm
saying the government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable
laws that prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you
cannot claim that something is a 'war crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective *****
by not declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or
laws of war. As far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such
thing as a war crime. Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of
war is, itself, a war crime.
Since war was declared, what's your fucking point?
Actually, it was not. If I am mistaken, certanly you can provide a
link to Congress' declaration (after all, the Constitution VERY
CLEARLY STATES that only Congress may declare war.)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf
Or:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R25435B9B
Both links return "No such document." Just like I said.
Go here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html
And then select Bill Number "HR117" from the 107'th Congress.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
I think if we had a three-word message right now it’d be, ‘We can do
better.’
- Howard Dean
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard C. Berkowitz" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 10:59:00 AM |
|
|
In article <43171F99.45757308@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:4317088D.7ABB7706@serv.net:
Daniel wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove
underscore)> wrote in message
news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes,
yet you are attempting to defend them, that they should
continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm
saying the government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable
laws that prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you
cannot claim that something is a 'war crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective *****
by not declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or
laws of war. As far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such
thing as a war crime. Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of
war is, itself, a war crime.
Since war was declared, what's your fucking point?
Actually, it was not. If I am mistaken, certanly you can provide a
link to Congress' declaration (after all, the Constitution VERY
CLEARLY STATES that only Congress may declare war.)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf
Or:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R25435B9B
Both links return "No such document." Just like I said.
Without saying there is or is not a valid document, thomas.loc.gov
searches are purged fairly quickly. It's not like Google, where a
search URL can be used over a long period of time.
In other words, a new search is needed rather than following the link.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 11:48:57 AM |
|
|
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in
news:hcb-FAD27E.11590001092005@newsgroups.comcast.net:
In article <43171F99.45757308@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:4317088D.7ABB7706@serv.net:
Daniel wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove
underscore)> wrote in message
news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war
crimes, yet you are attempting to defend them, that they
should continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes.
I'm saying the government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the
applicable laws that prohibit those actions? If you
cannot - then you cannot claim that something is a 'war
crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective
***** by not declaring a war, and so is not bound by any
conventions or laws of war. As far as Iraq and Afganistan
go, there's no such thing as a war crime. Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a
declaration of war is, itself, a war crime.
Since war was declared, what's your fucking point?
Actually, it was not. If I am mistaken, certanly you can provide
a link to Congress' declaration (after all, the Constitution VERY
CLEARLY STATES that only Congress may declare war.)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi- bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:hj114enr.txt.pdf
Or:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R25435B9B
Both links return "No such document." Just like I said.
Without saying there is or is not a valid document, thomas.loc.gov
searches are purged fairly quickly. It's not like Google, where a
search URL can be used over a long period of time.
In other words, a new search is needed rather than following the link.
I should know better, I've been burned on that one before. Do you know
of a way to get a hard link to a document?
It's HR114 from the 107'th Congress.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
I think if we had a three-word message right now it’d be, ‘We can do
better.’
- Howard Dean
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard C. Berkowitz" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 10:00:07 AM |
|
|
In article <1125567243.313599.177050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote in
message news:9769h1pahmnpbqs7f0p7dl6mus62upanep@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Here you are saying U.S. soldiers are committing war crimes, yet
you are
attempting to defend them, that they should continue.
No. I'm not saying the soldiers are committing war crimes. I'm
saying the
government is committing war crimes.
Can you state the specific actions and quote the applicable laws
that
prohibit those actions? If you cannot - then you cannot claim that
something is a 'war crime.'
In this instance, the government has covered its collective ***** by
not
declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or laws of
war. As
far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such thing as a war crime.
Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of war
is,
itself, a war crime.
Since war was declared, what's your fucking point?
There were military authorizations. There was no declaration of war. The
US hasn't declared war since 1941.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
31 Aug 2005 11:50:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:23:44 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
In this instance, the government has covered its collective ***** by not
declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or laws of war. As
far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such thing as a war crime.
Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of war is,
itself, a war crime.
ROTFL!!!!!
You do not have the slightest clue on this subject - do you?
Hint: There is no requirement anywhere that states that a declaration
of war is necessary.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
31 Aug 2005 05:15:07 PM |
|
|
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:irnbh1pi4p33fahju5lnl04946k53bfg1a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:23:44 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
In this instance, the government has covered its collective ***** by not
declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or laws of war.
As
far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such thing as a war crime.
Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of war is,
itself, a war crime.
ROTFL!!!!!
You do not have the slightest clue on this subject - do you?
Hint: There is no requirement anywhere that states that a declaration
of war is necessary.
You're right. But without being at war, doesn't that mean that our troops
are really just tourists with guns? Without being at war, do the laws of war
apply?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
31 Aug 2005 05:38:23 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:LqGdna8NfoQrtoveRVn-rw@io.com:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote in message news:irnbh1pi4p33fahju5lnl04946k53bfg1a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:23:44 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
In this instance, the government has covered its collective ***** by
not declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or laws
of war. As
far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such thing as a war
crime. Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of
war is, itself, a war crime.
ROTFL!!!!!
You do not have the slightest clue on this subject - do you?
Hint: There is no requirement anywhere that states that a declaration
of war is necessary.
You're right. But without being at war, doesn't that mean that our
troops are really just tourists with guns? Without being at war, do
the laws of war apply?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
In democratic nations, a Declaration of War customarily has to be passed
by the legislature. Today, the legislature will often simply pass an
"authorization for the use of force" instead. In both cases such
resolutions serve to empower the national Commander in Chief to use his
war powers.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The usual cause of evil in the world is that at any given time
half the people in the world are awake. "
- Dean Rusk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
31 Aug 2005 07:35:04 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1125527903.b4dba7e20527b01dd253ab3a55588b54@teranews...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:LqGdna8NfoQrtoveRVn-rw@io.com:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote in message news:irnbh1pi4p33fahju5lnl04946k53bfg1a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:23:44 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
In this instance, the government has covered its collective ***** by
not declaring a war, and so is not bound by any conventions or laws
of war. As
far as Iraq and Afganistan go, there's no such thing as a war
crime. Anything goes.
Arguably, engaging in war-like activities without a declaration of
war is, itself, a war crime.
ROTFL!!!!!
You do not have the slightest clue on this subject - do you?
Hint: There is no requirement anywhere that states that a declaration
of war is necessary.
You're right. But without being at war, doesn't that mean that our
troops are really just tourists with guns? Without being at war, do
the laws of war apply?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
In democratic nations, a Declaration of War customarily has to be passed
by the legislature. Today, the legislature will often simply pass an
"authorization for the use of force" instead. In both cases such
resolutions serve to empower the national Commander in Chief to use his
war powers.
Also from that same Wikipedia page:
"Declarations of war have been phased out as a diplomatic tool since the end
of the Second World War, particularly in the case of the United States.
Among other reasons, this is because the legal concept of a "state of war"
brings with it many logistical complications involving the established laws
of war and other complex political issues."
So, the "Logistical complications" of the "Laws of War" are inconvenient, so
let's ditch them.
Excellent.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 12:40:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:04 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Also from that same Wikipedia page:
"Declarations of war have been phased out as a diplomatic tool since the end
of the Second World War, particularly in the case of the United States.
Among other reasons, this is because the legal concept of a "state of war"
brings with it many logistical complications involving the established laws
of war and other complex political issues."
So, the "Logistical complications" of the "Laws of War" are inconvenient, so
let's ditch them.
Are you determined to demonstrate your ignorance? Those 'Laws' you
refer to are US Federal laws.
Are you aware that when there is an official declaration of war by
Congress - the following things occur (among others):
1) All limits on size and force structure for the US armed forces are
removed.
2) Our economy is placed on a 'war footing' designed to meet military
needs at the expense of other domestic needs.
As you can tell, these are extremes which are simply not necessary.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 06:00:08 PM |
|
|
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:q0ceh19cb7vra1dqnjk214k1bgod76uomo@4ax.com...
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:04 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Also from that same Wikipedia page:
"Declarations of war have been phased out as a diplomatic tool since the
end
of the Second World War, particularly in the case of the United States.
Among other reasons, this is because the legal concept of a "state of war"
brings with it many logistical complications involving the established
laws
of war and other complex political issues."
So, the "Logistical complications" of the "Laws of War" are inconvenient,
so
let's ditch them.
Are you determined to demonstrate your ignorance? Those 'Laws' you
refer to are US Federal laws.
How does that change the implication of the Wikipedia entry?
Are you aware that when there is an official declaration of war by
Congress - the following things occur (among others):
1) All limits on size and force structure for the US armed forces are
removed.
2) Our economy is placed on a 'war footing' designed to meet military
needs at the expense of other domestic needs.
As you can tell, these are extremes which are simply not necessary.
On the contrary. This is what makes war SERIOUS. This is what prevents us
from engaging in a war on WHIM.
It just so happens that we've now sidestepped that moderating influence on
whether a war is justified. Now we can engage in little conflicts of
convenience.
Funny how the soldiers come back just as dead as in a REAL war.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 07:56:42 PM |
|
|
In <q0ceh19cb7vra1dqnjk214k1bgod76uomo@4ax.com>, on 09/01/2005
at 10:40 AM, Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove
underscore)> said:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:04 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Also from that same Wikipedia page:
"Declarations of war have been phased out as a diplomatic tool since the end
of the Second World War, particularly in the case of the United States.
Among other reasons, this is because the legal concept of a "state of war"
brings with it many logistical complications involving the established laws
of war and other complex political issues."
So, the "Logistical complications" of the "Laws of War" are inconvenient, so
let's ditch them.
Are you determined to demonstrate your ignorance? Those 'Laws' you
refer to are US Federal laws.
Are you aware that when there is an official declaration of war by
Congress - the following things occur (among others):
1) All limits on size and force structure for the US armed forces are
removed.
2) Our economy is placed on a 'war footing' designed to meet military
needs at the expense of other domestic needs.
As you can tell, these are extremes which are simply not necessary.
Gee, why not since we're losing in iraq, can't find Osama after 5 years,
and are being kicked out other other countries we need to be in. You're a
wannabee campbell -- or you would know that.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
31 Aug 2005 05:31:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:15:07 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
You're right. But without being at war, doesn't that mean that our troops
are really just tourists with guns? Without being at war, do the laws of war
apply?
It makes them illegal enemy combatants. Even if we think it's a war
but the other side doesn't.
By our own precedent.
If it comes back to haunt us the President and this neocon advisers
who invented the "concept" as a way of getting around the Geneva
conventions must bear the blame.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Red Jacket" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
31 Aug 2005 08:54:37 PM |
|
|
'' Charlie don't surf !'
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:bnbch1d26ifa1ubcli2pqdndepi2gkn8qo@4ax.com...
If it comes back to haunt us the President and this neocon advisers
who invented the "concept" as a way of getting around the Geneva
conventions must bear the blame.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
31 Aug 2005 05:59:09 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:bnbch1d26ifa1ubcli2pqdndepi2gkn8qo@4ax.com:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:15:07 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
You're right. But without being at war, doesn't that mean that our
troops are really just tourists with guns? Without being at war, do
the laws of war apply?
It makes them illegal enemy combatants. Even if we think it's a war
but the other side doesn't.
Nope, it only takes one side to make a war.
By our own precedent.
No, we have followed all the Laws of War.
If it comes back to haunt us the President and this neocon advisers
who invented the "concept" as a way of getting around the Geneva
conventions must bear the blame.
We didn't "get around" the conventions, in fact we applied them
correctly. Terrorists are not entitled to POW status under the
conventions.
Illegal enemy combatants are those who fail to abide by the conditions
as set forth in the Geneva Conventions: carrying arms openly, wearing a
distinctive insignia or sign, and being subject to a known, established
command structure.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The usual cause of evil in the world is that at any given time
half the people in the world are awake. "
- Dean Rusk
.
|
|
|
| User: "i2p6 west" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
01 Sep 2005 12:29:19 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
No, we have followed all the Laws of War.
So have the "terrorists". They have clearly stated that Bush/U.S. is terrorist.
(and i agree with them)
We didn't "get around" the conventions, in fact we applied them
correctly. Terrorists are not entitled to POW status under the
conventions.
Who gets to define "terrorists"? ya fuckin rightwing law-evading warmongering moron
Illegal enemy combatants are those who fail to abide by the conditions
as set forth in the Geneva Conventions: carrying arms openly, wearing a
distinctive insignia or sign, and being subject to a known, established
command structure.
you rightwing assholes argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,
just to obfuscate and confuse the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
03 Sep 2005 11:52:02 AM |
|
|
i2p6 west <nospam@rr.net> wrote in
news:11hd4ckd595d876@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
No, we have followed all the Laws of War.
So have the "terrorists".
No, they have not.
They have clearly stated that Bush/U.S. is
terrorist. (and i agree with them)
We didn't "get around" the conventions, in fact we applied them
correctly. Terrorists are not entitled to POW status under the
conventions.
Who gets to define "terrorists"? ya fuckin rightwing law-evading
warmongering moron
It's clearly laid out in the Geneva Conventions.
Illegal enemy combatants are those who fail to abide by the
conditions as set forth in the Geneva Conventions: carrying arms
openly, wearing a distinctive insignia or sign, and being subject to
a known, established command structure.
you rightwing assholes argue how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin, just to obfuscate and confuse the issue.
You're such a loooooooooooooooooooooser.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
I think if we had a three-word message right now it’d be, ‘We can do
better.’
- Howard Dean
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Electoral Representation Subject to Military Service |
31 Aug 2005 06:29:45 PM |
|
|
In <1125529149.df3a887d2ae64755b3bfac6383203155@teranews>, on 08/31/2005
at 10:59 PM, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> said:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:bnbch1d26ifa1ubcli2pqdndepi2gkn8qo@4ax.com:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:15:07 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
You're right. But without being at war, doesn't that mean that our
troops are really just tourists with guns? Without being at war, do
the laws of war apply?
It makes them illegal enemy combatants. Even if we think it's a war
but the other side doesn't.
Nope, it only takes one side to make a war.
As in bush's "pre-emptive war?" You're right.
By our own precedent.
No, we have followed all the Laws of War.
We hung Germans for what bush has done. -->Deal with truth for once.
If it comes back to haunt us the President and this neocon advisers
who invented the "concept" as a way of getting around the Geneva
conventions must bear the blame.
We didn't "get around" the conventions, in fact we applied them
correctly. Terrorists are not entitled to POW status under the
conventions.
Illegal enemy combatants are those who fail to abide by the conditions
as set forth in the Geneva Conventions: carrying arms openly, wearing a
distinctive insignia or sign, and being subject to a known, established
command structure.
Gee, just like the American revolutionaries did 200 years ago.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
