| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Jawn Frawd Kerree" |
| Date: |
19 May 2004 11:53:26 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
"Figaro" <figaroxxspam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:et3na05sm7opbp0cemdgrvbc1io3o3lhck@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:34:09 -0400, "John F*ing Kerry : SUV Owner and
Terrorist
Supporter" <I support Terrorists with my gas guzzling
SUV's@Washington.gov>
wrote:
We could sentence Kerry to read all your posts. That would mean a slow and
painful death from uncontrolled laughing.
Figaro
Here, read this then:
Bush 45% Kerry 43%
(latest Rasmussen poll result)
"Data released yesterday shows that Democrats are becoming more convinced
that the Iraqi prisoner abuse was fairly widespread. However, Republicans
overwhelmingly believe the events at Abu Ghraib were isolated. A narrow
plurality of unaffiliated voters share that view.
That survey also shows that the Abu Ghraib scandal has not dented the belief
of Americans that Iraq is better off now than it was under Saddam Hussein."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Figaro" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
19 May 2004 12:06:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:53:26 GMT, "Jawn Frawd Kerree" <BandaidWarHero@dnc.com>
wrote:
"Figaro" <figaroxxspam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:et3na05sm7opbp0cemdgrvbc1io3o3lhck@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:34:09 -0400, "John F*ing Kerry : SUV Owner and
Terrorist
Supporter" <I support Terrorists with my gas guzzling
SUV's@Washington.gov>
wrote:
We could sentence Kerry to read all your posts. That would mean a slow and
painful death from uncontrolled laughing.
Figaro
Here, read this then:
Bush 45% Kerry 43%
(latest Rasmussen poll result)
You forgot the rest, as usual:
Yesterday, Rasmussen Reports data showed that just 45% of Americans believe the
U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That's the lowest level ever
recorded
The number who see the President as a better leader than John Kerry is also at
its lowest level of the year.
With an error percentage of 3%, Bush's 45% is still good for a laugh.
Figaro
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fraude Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
19 May 2004 12:08:39 PM |
|
|
"Figaro" <figaroxxspam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:uo4na09gkt37tcvsaqumo7b0uf1ev1j659@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:53:26 GMT, "Jawn Frawd Kerree"
<BandaidWarHero@dnc.com>
wrote:
"Figaro" <figaroxxspam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:et3na05sm7opbp0cemdgrvbc1io3o3lhck@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:34:09 -0400, "John F*ing Kerry : SUV Owner and
Terrorist
Supporter" <I support Terrorists with my gas guzzling
SUV's@Washington.gov>
wrote:
We could sentence Kerry to read all your posts. That would mean a slow
and
painful death from uncontrolled laughing.
Figaro
Here, read this then:
Bush 45% Kerry 43%
(latest Rasmussen poll result)
You forgot the rest, as usual:
He also trails Kerry by only 1 point in California now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eldorado" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
19 May 2004 12:04:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2004, Jawn Frawd Kerree wrote:
"Figaro" <figaroxxspam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:et3na05sm7opbp0cemdgrvbc1io3o3lhck@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:34:09 -0400, "John F*ing Kerry : SUV Owner and
Terrorist
Supporter" <I support Terrorists with my gas guzzling
SUV's@Washington.gov>
wrote:
We could sentence Kerry to read all your posts. That would mean a slow and
painful death from uncontrolled laughing.
Figaro
Here, read this then:
Sort of amusing that white house lawyers feel that the Bush
administration could be tried for war crimes:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734
May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that
U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and
unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on
terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with
participants in the debate over the issue.
The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it
might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained
in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White
House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President
George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of
Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva
Convention.
In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law
passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans
from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the
Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and
that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told
Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice
Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was
especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva
Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and
"inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."
One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not
have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the
threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,"
Gonzales wrote.
"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent
counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based
on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote.
THE WAR CRIME MEMOS
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House
lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his
decision—then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell— to
exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva
convention provisions.
"Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War
Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any
future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.
The memo—and strong dissents by Secretary of State Colin Powell and his
chief legal advisor, William Howard Taft IV—are among hundreds of pages of
internal administration documents on the Geneva Convention and related
issues that have been obtained by NEWSWEEK and are reported for the first
time in this week's magazine. Newsweek made some of them available online
today.
RELATED STORY
A Secret History: How Torture Took Root
The memos provide fresh insights into a fierce internal administration
debate over whether the United States should conform to international
treaty obligations in pursuing the war on terror. Administration critics
have charged that key legal decisions made in the months after September
11, 2001 including the White House's February 2002 declaration not to
grant any Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters prisoners of war status under the
Geneva Convention, laid the groundwork for the interrogation abuses that
have recently been revealed in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
• Isikoff on war crimes memo
May 18: Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff explains how White House counsel
Alberto Gonzales’ memo to President Bush on tough new measures of handling
prisoners could leave U.S. officials vulnerable to charges of war crimes.
MSNBC
As reported in this week's magazine edition, the Gonzales memo urged Bush
to declare all aspects of the war in Afghanistan—including the detention
of both Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters—exempt from the strictures of the
Geneva Convention. In the memo, Gonzales described the war against
terorrism as a "new kind of war" and then added: "The nature of the new
war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly
obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to
avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try
terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians."
But while top White House officials publicly talked about trying Al Qaeda
leaders for war crimes, the internal memos show that administration
lawyers were privately concerned that they could tried for war crimes
themselves based on actions the administration were taking, and might have
to take in the future, to combat the terrorist threat.
The issue first arises in a January 9, 2002, draft memorandum written by
the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluding that
"neither the War Crimes Act nor the Geneva Conventions" would apply to the
detention conditions of Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
Cuba. The memo includes a lengthy discussion of the War Crimes Act, which
it concludes has no binding effect on the president because it would
interfere with his Commander in Chief powers to determine "how best to
deploy troops in the field." (The memo, by Justice lawyers John Yoo and
Robert Delahunty, also concludes—in response to a question by the
Pentagon—that U.S. soldiers could not be tried for violations of the laws
of war in Afghanistan because such international laws have "no binding
legal effect on either the President or the military.")
But while the discussion in the Justice memo revolves around the possible
application of the War Crimes Act to members of the U.S. military, there
is some reason to believe that administration lawyers were worried that
the law could even be used in the future against senior administration
officials.
One lawyer involved in the interagency debates over the Geneva
Conventions issue recalled a meeting in early 2002 in which participants
challenged Yoo, a primary architect of the administration's legal
strategy, when he raised the possibility of Justice Department war crimes
prosecutions unless there was a clear presidential direction proclaiming
the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. The
concern seemed misplaced, Yoo was told, given that loyal Bush appointees
were in charge of the Justice Department.
"Well, the political climate could change," Yoo replied, according to the
lawyer who attended the meeting. "The implication was that a new president
would come into office and start potential prosecutions of a bunch of
ex-Bush officials," the lawyer said. (Yoo declined comment.)
This appears to be precisely the concern in Gonzales's memo dated January
25, 2002, in which he strongly urges Bush to stick to his decision to
exempt the treatment of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters from the provisons
of the Geneva Conventions. (Powell and the State Department had wanted the
U.S. to at least have individual reviews of Taliban fighters before
concluding that they did not qualify for Geneva Convention provisions.)
One reason to do so, Gonzales wrote, is that it "substantially reduces the
threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." He
added that "it is difficult to predict with confidence what actions might
be deemed to constitute violations" of the War Crimes Act just as it was
"difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the
course of the war on terrorism." Such uncertainties, Gonzales wrote,
argued for the President to uphold his exclusion of Geneva Convention
provisions to the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees who, he concluded, would
still be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent
with military necessarity, in a manner consistst with the principles" of
the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.
In the end, after strong protests from Powell, the White House retreated
slightly. In February 2002, it proclaimed that, while the United States
would adhere to the Geneva Conventions in the conduct of the war in
Afghanistan, captured Taliban and Qaeda fighters would not be given
prisoner of war status under the conventions. It is a rendering that
Administration lawyers believed would protect U.S. interrogators or their
superiors in Washington from being subjected to prosecutions under the War
Crimes Act based on their treatment of the prisoners.
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
--
Randomly generated signature --
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. - Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 12:38:30 PM |
|
|
Alt.politics.elections removed from follow-ups.
eldorado wrote:
Sort of amusing that white house lawyers feel that the Bush
administration could be tried for war crimes:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734
May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago
that
U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of
new and
unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on
terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews
with
participants in the debate over the issue.
... It urges President
George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention
of
Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the
Geneva
Convention.
In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996
law
passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any
Americans
from committing war crimes-defined in part as "grave breaches" of
the
Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials"
and
that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales
told
Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice
Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was
especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva
Conventions-such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity"
and
"inhuman treatment" of prisoners-was "undefined."
One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did
not
have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces
the
threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,"
Gonzales wrote.
"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and
independent
counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges
based
on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote.
THE WAR CRIME MEMOS
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White
House
lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his
decision-then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State
Powell- to
exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from
Geneva
convention provisions.
How bizarre.
The Bush administration decision to 'exempt' Al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters from Geneva convention provisions is a grave breach of
Article V of the Third convention of 1949.
Such decisions are to be made only by a competent court or tribunal
and only on a case-by-case basis for each individual being considered.
--
FF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Demmie Cheats" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 12:43:27 PM |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1105209510.487068.157320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White
House
lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his
decision-then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State
Powell- to
exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from
Geneva
convention provisions.
How bizarre.
The Bush administration decision to 'exempt' Al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters from Geneva convention provisions is a grave breach of
Article V of the Third convention of 1949.
Question: how do you determine who is an "Al Qaeda fighter" or a "Taliban
fighter"? Do they wear, for example, the flag of the country of Al Qaeda on
their sleeve, or have the Official Seal of the country of Taliban on their
chest?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David L. Debonnaire" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 01:15:04 PM |
|
|
Demmie Cheats schrieb:
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1105209510.487068.157320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White
House
lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his
decision-then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State
Powell- to
exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from
Geneva
convention provisions.
How bizarre.
The Bush administration decision to 'exempt' Al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters from Geneva convention provisions is a grave breach of
Article V of the Third convention of 1949.
Question: how do you determine who is an "Al Qaeda fighter" or a "Taliban
fighter"? Do they wear, for example, the flag of the country of Al Qaeda on
their sleeve, or have the Official Seal of the country of Taliban on their
chest?
Why not? ... you've got '*****' plastered all over you, you and you
rightard brute!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven L." |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 03:29:19 PM |
|
|
David L. Debonnaire wrote:
Demmie Cheats schrieb:
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1105209510.487068.157320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White
House
lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his
decision-then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State
Powell- to
exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from
Geneva
convention provisions.
How bizarre.
The Bush administration decision to 'exempt' Al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters from Geneva convention provisions is a grave breach of
Article V of the Third convention of 1949.
Question: how do you determine who is an "Al Qaeda fighter" or a
"Taliban fighter"? Do they wear, for example, the flag of the country
of Al Qaeda on their sleeve, or have the Official Seal of the country
of Taliban on their chest?
Why not? ... you've got '*****' plastered all over you, you and you
rightard brute!
You are left-wing foreign vermin, fit only for extermination.
Don't tell us Americans how to run our country.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Demmie Cheats" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 03:38:02 PM |
|
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:PgYDd.1488$KJ2.1364@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
David L. Debonnaire wrote:
Question: how do you determine who is an "Al Qaeda fighter" or a
"Taliban fighter"? Do they wear, for example, the flag of the country
of Al Qaeda on their sleeve, or have the Official Seal of the country of
Taliban on their chest?
Why not? ... you've got '*****' plastered all over you, you and you
rightard brute!
You are left-wing foreign vermin, fit only for extermination.
Don't tell us Americans how to run our country.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
David, like so many of the elected officials in the Democrat Party, is
basically in league with the Muslim Terrorists, and thus he cares more about
the "rights" of those who bomb civilians and saw the heads off of their
civilian victims than he does about defending America or protecting the
American people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jstarret" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 03:35:10 PM |
|
|
Steven L. wrote:
You are left-wing foreign vermin, fit only for extermination.
Don't tell us Americans how to run our country.
David was right about one thing, Steve. You are indeed an *****. I
imagine I would still enjoy having a drink with you and arm wrestling
for the bill.
JS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Demmie Cheats" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 03:39:24 PM |
|
|
"jstarret" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message
news:1105220110.504798.245050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steven L. wrote:
You are left-wing foreign vermin, fit only for extermination.
Don't tell us Americans how to run our country.
David was right about one thing, Steve. You are indeed an *****.
Actually, David was referring to you, Starret.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Demmie Cheats" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 01:39:43 PM |
|
|
OK, the question stumped David. Any other of you dumb liberal Democrat
assholes want to try to answer the question?
"David L. Debonnaire" <david.no-spam@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:crpbih$j7b$04$1@news.t-online.com...
Demmie Cheats schrieb:
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1105209510.487068.157320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White
House
lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his
decision-then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State
Powell- to
exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from
Geneva
convention provisions.
How bizarre.
The Bush administration decision to 'exempt' Al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters from Geneva convention provisions is a grave breach of
Article V of the Third convention of 1949.
Question: how do you determine who is an "Al Qaeda fighter" or a
"Taliban fighter"? Do they wear, for example, the flag of the country of
Al Qaeda on their sleeve, or have the Official Seal of the country of
Taliban on their chest?
Why not? ... you've got '*****' plastered all over you, you and you
rightard brute!
.
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 03:41:09 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then.
From: "Demmie Cheats"
Date: 1/8/2005 2:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3GWDd.832$C52.635@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
OK, the question stumped David. Any other of you dumb liberal Democrat
assholes want to try to answer the question?
Ok here is a question for you. What republican elected official has a pruple
heart. What elected republican ever actually served in combat other than john
Mccain?
I know that it is mean to point out that republicans are generally cowards and
like to let the other person die .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Demmie Cheats" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 04:17:33 PM |
|
|
"InsuranceBroker" <insurancenj@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050108164109.06421.00000013@mb-m14.aol.com...
Subject: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then.
From: "Demmie Cheats"
Date: 1/8/2005 2:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3GWDd.832$C52.635@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
OK, the question stumped David. Any other of you dumb liberal Democrat
assholes want to try to answer the question?
Ok here is a question for you.
Sorry, that doesn't constitute an answer to the question.
Next?
.
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
09 Jan 2005 09:47:41 AM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then.
From: "Demmie Cheats"
Date: 1/8/2005 5:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <1_YDd.1302$pZ4.76@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"InsuranceBroker" <insurancenj@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050108164109.06421.00000013@mb-m14.aol.com...
Subject: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then.
From: "Demmie Cheats"
Date: 1/8/2005 2:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3GWDd.832$C52.635@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
OK, the question stumped David. Any other of you dumb liberal Democrat
assholes want to try to answer the question?
Ok here is a question for you.
Sorry, that doesn't constitute an answer to the question.
Next?
Afraid to admit that there are no republicans with a purple heart. There are
damn few republicans that ever served in the military. There are zero
congressional kids in harms way today. I can understand after all those bad
mouthings of kerry that you would like to forget what total cowards that
republican have always been.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Should Be Executed for War Crimes then. |
08 Jan 2005 10:18:19 PM |
|
|
Demmie Cheats wrote:
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1105209510.487068.157320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the
White
House
lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his
decision-then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State
Powell- to
exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters
from
Geneva
convention provisions.
How bizarre.
The Bush administration decision to 'exempt' Al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters from Geneva convention provisions is a grave breach of
Article V of the Third convention of 1949.
Such decisions are to be made only by a competent court or tribunal
and only on a case-by-case basis for each individual being
considered.
Question: how do you determine who is an "Al Qaeda fighter" or a
"Taliban
fighter"? Do they wear, for example, the flag of the country of Al
Qaeda on
their sleeve, or have the Official Seal of the country of Taliban on
their
chest?
I see you understand the problem. When combatants engage in perfidy,
such as fighting in civilian disguise there is substantial risk that
innocent parties will be captured. That is why detainees must be
protected until their status is determined by a competent court or
tribunal.
--
FF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
