| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
20 May 2004 06:33:49 PM |
| Object: |
Trump "International Law" now |
.... at least in the spirit of International Law, our own liberal media
could be held accountable for violating "human rights".
From a FAQ sheet on "International Law"…
------ Filming of Prisoners of War ------
"Question: Can POWs be shown on television?
It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to deliberately expose
prisoners of war (POWs) to the media. A detaining authority in wartime
has a clear obligation not to parade POWs, or allow them to be exposed
to public viewing."
"Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention states: "Prisoners of war
must at all times be humanely treated.... Likewise, prisoners of war
must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence
or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of
reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited." "
"The prohibition is not a blanket ban on any image whatsoever of a
POW; for example, it would not extend to incidental filming of POWs,
when journalists are documenting broader military operations."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq.htm
What your liberal media has done is not "incidental filiming" of POW's
which curiously enough means that if/when International Law is fully
implemented upon all nations (especially the USA) and strictly
followed... that your liberal media will not be able to show such
things at their sole discretion on the nightly news without risking
punishment from some sort of international court.
And BTW, according to International Law terrorists (see "non-citizens"
below) must be treated in a humanitarian way, by you and I who are now
deemed "Occupying powers". According to them, we should be sending
the terrorists food, medicine and all other 'humans rights' things.
Again from a FAQ sheet....
"What are the basic principles of international humanitarian law (IHL)
underlying the military occupation of Iraq?"
"The United States, United Kingdom and other coalition members are
considered occupying powers in Iraq. The Hague Regulations and the
Fourth Geneva Convention impose numerous rights and obligations on
occupying powers. They are obliged to restore and maintain, as far as
possible, public order and safety. They must also respect the
fundamental human rights of the territory's inhabitants, including
refugees and other non-citizens."
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq042904.htm#How%20does%20human%20rights%20law%20apply%20in%20Iraq?
Why isn't the media in an uproar over our foes in Iraq who are
definatley violating "International Law" WRT urban combat?
From a FAQ sheet...
------ IHL on Urban Combat and Besieged Areas ------
"Question: What obligations do armies have to protect civilians during
fighting in urban areas? "
"Urban warfare significantly increases the risks to the civilian
population. In the conduct of military operations, armed forces must
take constant care to spare the civilian population, civilians and
civilian objects. IHL places obligations on both defending and
attacking forces. Defending forces must to the maximum extent feasible
avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated
areas; seek to remove the civilian population, individual civilians
and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military
objectives; and take other necessary precautions to protect civilians
against the dangers resulting from military operations (P1, art. 58)."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq.htm
"Pax Americana" ended 3 years ago according to the following
website...
Pax Romana: 27 B. C. - 180 A. D. The period known as the Pax Romana.
"A super power in its day, Rome put the development of its citizens
ahead of conquest. This was enabled by active defense of its borders.
Its neighbors benefited from the Pax Romana as much as did Rome.
By analogy, the period between 1865 and 2001, was a Pax Americana in
the sense that mainland Americans, like the Romans before them,
enjoyed peace and security—at home. In large measure, we still do.
Pax Romana happened in spite of human nature, not because of any
particular traits of character or temperament of the Romans.
Nevertheless, the mere fact that a relatively peaceful period lasted
two centuries in spite of human nature gives us hope."
http://www.roadtopeace.org/history/human_history/human_history_pax.html
The goal of Utopians is now "Pax Worldicana"... a world peace which,
obviously can only come about after the imposition of world law i.e.
"International Law".
And so as to remove all doubt that I'm unmercifully picking on ungodly
atheists, here's a couple of examples of Christians and Jews who
support the notion of "International Law"....
"Who We Are: JPPI is a Washington, D.C.based group of American Jews
who believe that a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in Palestine
and Israel is attainable through negotiations based on international
law and the implementation of relevant United Nations (UN)
resolutions."
http://www.jppi.org/mission_statement.html
"The Holy See maintains that there are still peaceful avenues within
the context of the vast patrimony of international law and
institutions which exist for that purpose. A decision regarding the
use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the
United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences
of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and
those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the
region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity."
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-051.htm
I think some want to REVOKE the Patriot Act in order to INVOKE
International Law (and it's granting of rights to terroists)... right
here in the "land of the free and the home of the brave".
My question is this: Do you think terrorists (such as the ones
involved in planning, plotting and carrying out 911) should all be
well fed, have better medical insurance than some of us, and be
treated with respect while we are chasing them around the world trying
to kill them?
If you answer that with a "yes", I'd then like to ask you this: Would
you feed an intruder who breaks into your house prior to him
unmercifully slaughtering your entire family before your eyes?
If you answer "yes" to that I can see why you might think trumping the
US Constitution with "International Law" together with removing God
from the public eye would be priorities WRT your agenda.
Jd
"Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of
singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth;
say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob." (Isaiah 48:20)
.
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now |
29 May 2004 06:12:29 AM |
|
|
ZenIsWhen wrote:
"Jd" <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u81sa0peig04hof1fr9mnfigi5fe3h2p5c@4ax.com...
... at least in the spirit of International Law, our own liberal media
could be held accountable for violating "human rights".
Get a brain, dipshit.
The government, not the media, is responsible for such actions!
You have a foul moth.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now |
20 May 2004 08:48:16 PM |
|
|
Great Lord Jd <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net>, braving the raging storm,
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Thu, 20 May 2004 23:33:49
GMT and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
From a FAQ sheet on "International Law"…
<snip>
You're right, we should just kill them all. But bullets would be
messy, and it would be too hard to account for everyone, so let's
build special camps for the purpose...
Sometimes, when I realize that I spent time in the Army defending
worthless fascists like you, it makes me sick. But here's a free
clue:
We follow the Geneva Conventions because we are supposed to be better
than the terrorists, better than the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese
forces. We are supposed to be the civilized ones who don't take
vengence on helpless foes, but instead treat them with dignity.
Yes, we're supposed to feed them, treat them, and smile about it.
Know what doing that to captured Viet Cong in Vietnam yielded? Good
intelligence and VC who came over and worked for the US. I've spoken
with former German and Japanese troops who were captured by Americans,
and stunned at the treatment they were given.
Of course, your ratty little neocon brain can't handle this concept
(its called mercy, go look it up) so you are outraged that people are
questioning the use of torture by the United States, and whinging
about the liberal media.
It's obvious you never served a day in your life, or you'd understand
the stain on the Army right now. Our honor has been blackened, and to
the men and women of the senior service, that means something.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now |
29 May 2004 06:12:29 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Great Lord Jd <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net>, braving the raging storm,
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Thu, 20 May 2004 23:33:49
GMT and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
From a FAQ sheet on "International Law"…
<snip>
You're right, we should just kill them all. But bullets would be
messy, and it would be too hard to account for everyone, so let's
build special camps for the purpose...
Sometimes, when I realize that I spent time in the Army defending
worthless fascists like you, it makes me sick. But here's a free
clue:
We follow the Geneva Conventions because we are supposed to be better
than the terrorists, better than the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese
forces. We are supposed to be the civilized ones who don't take
vengence on helpless foes, but instead treat them with dignity.
Yes, we're supposed to feed them, treat them, and smile about it.
Know what doing that to captured Viet Cong in Vietnam yielded? Good
intelligence and VC who came over and worked for the US. I've spoken
with former German and Japanese troops who were captured by Americans,
and stunned at the treatment they were given.
Of course, your ratty little neocon brain can't handle this concept
(its called mercy, go look it up) so you are outraged that people are
questioning the use of torture by the United States, and whinging
about the liberal media.
It's obvious you never served a day in your life, or you'd understand
the stain on the Army right now. Our honor has been blackened, and to
the men and women of the senior service, that means something.
If you don't follow my moral code, I'm certainly not going to follow
your Geneva Conventions.
Besides, how could military personel have sunk to the level of sexual
torture that they did had they not been raised in the sexually
perverted society of Sodomites and Viacom Babylon?
I really don't think we'd be in this mess had the governemt gotten a
grip on enforcing traditional family values among the media,
education, and above all... the adventures of the neo-Sodomites.
Jd
"And they forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he delivered
them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them
into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not
any longer stand before their enemies." (Judges 2:13-14)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now |
29 May 2004 02:02:11 PM |
|
|
In article <7jcib0l7dt5s05b15pec3d530hbem5udb7@4ax.com> Jd <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> writes:
<Douglas Berry wrote:
<
{...}
<>It's obvious you never served a day in your life, or you'd understand
<>the stain on the Army right now. Our honor has been blackened, and to
<>the men and women of the senior service, that means something.
<
<If you don't follow my moral code, I'm certainly not going to follow
<your Geneva Conventions.
<
<Besides, how could military personel have sunk to the level of sexual
<torture that they did had they not been raised in the sexually
<perverted society of Sodomites and Viacom Babylon?
<
Probably the same way the Inquisition figured out how to
torture people in the fifteenth century.
Or do you think Seville had a beta version of Viacom?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: The Dog that Noses Bush's Secret Recipie [was:Trump "International Law" now] |
20 May 2004 07:31:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:33:49 -0500, Jd wrote
(in article <u81sa0peig04hof1fr9mnfigi5fe3h2p5c@4ax.com>):
... at least in the spirit of International Law, our own liberal media
could be held accountable for violating "human rights".
"The Buck stops somewhere, anywhere else than the Presidency,
let's say the buck stops there over in the Newspapers; yeah,
that's the ticket."
"It wasn't the fault of myself or my vice-president unless it
boils down to just one of us and, in that case, Cheney is toast."
"What do you mean, Geneva Convention? I've never heard of it.
Huh? 1960's? 1970's? Whatever are you talking about? I've never
heard of the 1960's or the 1970's. Where was that?"
"I'm the Commander in Chief and I'm the supreme commander of the
United States military unless I need to sacrifice Cheney like a
temple prostitute for my screw-ups."
"Like I told President Faux, the United States is for Americans:
North, Central and Southern. And that's the only people who
should be allowed to remain in the United States and do work for
the really big supporters of the Republican Party and CREEP."
"That's correct. Millions of jobs in the United States have been
lost during my first term as President but we hope to - after the
next election which I've won (by a six to one vote) - use that as
a cornerstone for my second term, Jeb's two terms and the terms
of the Bush dog who is the only other being who knows the secret
recipie to detonating the next hydrogen bomb."
"Just remember, until my election, you thought Clinton was bad.
You didn't know the half of it."
"Everyone thought I'd be like my father. I sure surprised them
when I decided to copy President Nixon."
- Exerpts from "The Cocaine Connection 2- GWB in Mena".
From a FAQ sheet on "International Law"…
------ Filming of Prisoners of War ------
"Question: Can POWs be shown on television?
It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to deliberately expose
prisoners of war (POWs) to the media. A detaining authority in wartime
has a clear obligation not to parade POWs, or allow them to be exposed
to public viewing."
"Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention states: "Prisoners of war
must at all times be humanely treated.... Likewise, prisoners of war
must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence
or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of
reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited." "
"The prohibition is not a blanket ban on any image whatsoever of a
POW; for example, it would not extend to incidental filming of POWs,
when journalists are documenting broader military operations."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq.htm
What your liberal media has done is not "incidental filiming" of POW's
which curiously enough means that if/when International Law is fully
implemented upon all nations (especially the USA) and strictly
followed... that your liberal media will not be able to show such
things at their sole discretion on the nightly news without risking
punishment from some sort of international court.
And BTW, according to International Law terrorists (see "non-citizens"
below) must be treated in a humanitarian way, by you and I who are now
deemed "Occupying powers". According to them, we should be sending
the terrorists food, medicine and all other 'humans rights' things.
Again from a FAQ sheet....
"What are the basic principles of international humanitarian law (IHL)
underlying the military occupation of Iraq?"
"The United States, United Kingdom and other coalition members are
considered occupying powers in Iraq. The Hague Regulations and the
Fourth Geneva Convention impose numerous rights and obligations on
occupying powers. They are obliged to restore and maintain, as far as
possible, public order and safety. They must also respect the
fundamental human rights of the territory's inhabitants, including
refugees and other non-citizens."
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq042904.htm#How%20does%20human%20right
s%20law%20apply%20in%20Iraq?
Why isn't the media in an uproar over our foes in Iraq who are
definatley violating "International Law" WRT urban combat?
From a FAQ sheet...
------ IHL on Urban Combat and Besieged Areas ------
"Question: What obligations do armies have to protect civilians during
fighting in urban areas? "
"Urban warfare significantly increases the risks to the civilian
population. In the conduct of military operations, armed forces must
take constant care to spare the civilian population, civilians and
civilian objects. IHL places obligations on both defending and
attacking forces. Defending forces must to the maximum extent feasible
avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated
areas; seek to remove the civilian population, individual civilians
and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military
objectives; and take other necessary precautions to protect civilians
against the dangers resulting from military operations (P1, art. 58)."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq.htm
"Pax Americana" ended 3 years ago according to the following
website...
Pax Romana: 27 B. C. - 180 A. D. The period known as the Pax Romana.
"A super power in its day, Rome put the development of its citizens
ahead of conquest. This was enabled by active defense of its borders.
Its neighbors benefited from the Pax Romana as much as did Rome.
By analogy, the period between 1865 and 2001, was a Pax Americana in
the sense that mainland Americans, like the Romans before them,
enjoyed peace and security—at home. In large measure, we still do.
Pax Romana happened in spite of human nature, not because of any
particular traits of character or temperament of the Romans.
Nevertheless, the mere fact that a relatively peaceful period lasted
two centuries in spite of human nature gives us hope."
http://www.roadtopeace.org/history/human_history/human_history_pax.html
The goal of Utopians is now "Pax Worldicana"... a world peace which,
obviously can only come about after the imposition of world law i.e.
"International Law".
And so as to remove all doubt that I'm unmercifully picking on ungodly
atheists, here's a couple of examples of Christians and Jews who
support the notion of "International Law"....
"Who We Are: JPPI is a Washington, D.C.based group of American Jews
who believe that a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in Palestine
and Israel is attainable through negotiations based on international
law and the implementation of relevant United Nations (UN)
resolutions."
http://www.jppi.org/mission_statement.html
"The Holy See maintains that there are still peaceful avenues within
the context of the vast patrimony of international law and
institutions which exist for that purpose. A decision regarding the
use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the
United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences
of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and
those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the
region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity."
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-051.htm
I think some want to REVOKE the Patriot Act in order to INVOKE
International Law (and it's granting of rights to terroists)... right
here in the "land of the free and the home of the brave".
My question is this: Do you think terrorists (such as the ones
involved in planning, plotting and carrying out 911) should all be
well fed, have better medical insurance than some of us, and be
treated with respect while we are chasing them around the world trying
to kill them?
If you answer that with a "yes", I'd then like to ask you this: Would
you feed an intruder who breaks into your house prior to him
unmercifully slaughtering your entire family before your eyes?
If you answer "yes" to that I can see why you might think trumping the
US Constitution with "International Law" together with removing God
from the public eye would be priorities WRT your agenda.
Jd
"Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of
singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth;
say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob." (Isaiah 48:20)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
