European Human Rights

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]doogie wrote:
orion wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

I have sympathy for people held illegally. There is zero proof that they are terrorists.

When did you get to see the evidence of their guilt or innocence?

Guilty untill proven innocent eh doogie?

You said there is zero proof they are terrorists. I haven’t made a judgement yet.

What evidence did the government provide you with to convince you there
was zero proof?

It looks like you’ve still got a few things to learn about how the system works (or at least should work).

The prosecuter gives proof of guilt. If he doesn’t, you can’t hold people in jail.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Wait a minute…

You are saying that everyone has to right to be accused in a court of law by a jury of his peers?

Thats just crazy talk and you know it.

Where would we be without unlimited executive powers?

Checks and balances? More liberal talking points!

A question to the American conservatives:

What exactly is it you conserve?

Illegal enemy combatants have no rights.

Not under the Constitution.
Not under the Geneva Convention.

[/quote]

Yup, you invented the term illegal combatants.

You could, if you were so inclined, find out that those people have a lot of rights under the Geneva convention.

But that should not stop us. I think the Austrian parliament should declare you to be a hostile tooth fairy.

Afterwards we will kidnap you, detain you, freedom tickle you, and send you along your way if we find out, after intensive freedom tickling, that you might have been at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

And it would all be in the best interest of the Austrian people, because, after all, no Austrians would be treated like that.

Sounds much more convincing now, doesn?t it?

What exactly is it you American conservatives conserve again? The letter , or the spirit of the law?

82

Only someone who’s never been to Europe would make a sweeping statement like that.

83

[quote]orion wrote:

Yup, you invented the term illegal combatants.

You could, if you were so inclined, find out that those people have a lot of rights under the Geneva convention.
[/quote]

  1. Prisoners of war are “legal enemy combatants.”
  2. The people at Gitmo are not prisoners of war as defined by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says spys, saboteurs, and people under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power forefit their rights.
  3. If they aren’t legal enemy combatants, then they are “ILLEGAL enemy combatants”.
  4. They don’t have rights.
84

[quote]doogie wrote:

  1. Prisoners of war are “legal enemy combatants.”
  2. The people at Gitmo are not prisoners of war as defined by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says spys, saboteurs, and people under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power forefit their rights.
  3. If they aren’t legal enemy combatants, then they are “ILLEGAL enemy combatants”.
  4. They don’t have rights.

[/quote]

That’s fucked up.

85

[quote]doogie wrote:
orion wrote:

Yup, you invented the term illegal combatants.

You could, if you were so inclined, find out that those people have a lot of rights under the Geneva convention.

  1. Prisoners of war are “legal enemy combatants.”
  2. The people at Gitmo are not prisoners of war as defined by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says spys, saboteurs, and people under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power forefit their rights.
  3. If they aren’t legal enemy combatants, then they are “ILLEGAL enemy combatants”.
  4. They don’t have rights.
    [/quote]

And that applies to prisoners that were kidnapped by the US all around the globe or handed over by Pakistanis or Afghans in what way?

Plus:

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

If you can interpret that in a way that it reads Guantanamo, more power to you!

86

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They are all innocent. Just ask them.

Guilty untill proven otherwise eh Zap?

…

I don’t think you have grasped the concept that this is a shooting war and not a courtroom drama.[/quote]

All’s fair in love and war eh.

Wait a minute. Does that mean the 9/11 attacks were fair also?

After all, this is a SHOOTING WAR ! ! ! Right ? ? ?

You’re a fool Zap.

87

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
There really isn’t much difference between you and Saddam, is there?

Am I an America hater for hoping that the leader of the free world wouldn’t stoop to Saddams level?

Oh - there are huge differences between me and Sadaam. You are just so narrow minded and lazy that this is the best you have to offer. This is why no one with a functioning brainstem takes you seriously here.
[/quote]

No there isn’t. Like Saddam, you bend the rules as you please. You make up the law as you go along.

88

[quote]doogie wrote:
orion wrote:

Yup, you invented the term illegal combatants.

You could, if you were so inclined, find out that those people have a lot of rights under the Geneva convention.

  1. Prisoners of war are “legal enemy combatants.”
  2. The people at Gitmo are not prisoners of war as defined by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says spys, saboteurs, and people under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power forefit their rights.
  3. If they aren’t legal enemy combatants, then they are “ILLEGAL enemy combatants”.
  4. They don’t have rights.
    [/quote]

One small nit - I’m sure you meant this, given the context of the question, but I need to point it out anyway – they have no rights under the Geneva Convention, but they are entitled to certain basic human rights (certainly not the rights of a U.S. citizen accused of a normal crime).

89

[quote]orion wrote:
doogie wrote:
orion wrote:

Yup, you invented the term illegal combatants.

You could, if you were so inclined, find out that those people have a lot of rights under the Geneva convention.

  1. Prisoners of war are “legal enemy combatants.”
  2. The people at Gitmo are not prisoners of war as defined by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says spys, saboteurs, and people under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power forefit their rights.
  3. If they aren’t legal enemy combatants, then they are “ILLEGAL enemy combatants”.
  4. They don’t have rights.

And that applies to prisoners that were kidnapped by the US all around the globe or handed over by Pakistanis or Afghans in what way?

Plus:

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

If you can interpret that in a way that it reads Guantanamo, more power to you![/quote]

WHere’s your definition for “protected person”? That’s kind of key…

I’m suspecting that a person needs to be a bona fide prisoner of war under the definitions of the conventions to qualify as a “protected person.”

90

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
No there isn’t. Like Saddam, you bend the rules as you please. You make up the law as you go along.[/quote]

Whatever you say - like I give a flying fuck what an internet warrior from belgium (a belcher?) thinks about me.

91

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Those rates are often fake.

A doctors office may claim that they normally charge $ 200 for a visit and only charge Blue Cross $ 100 for the visit but it is often a sham and they would give an uninsured patient the same $ 100 rate just for asking for a better rate.

[/quote]

And often, when dealing with surgeries, etc, they are not fake. When they are not fake, you pay a lot.

92

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
doogie wrote:

  1. Prisoners of war are “legal enemy combatants.”
  2. The people at Gitmo are not prisoners of war as defined by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says spys, saboteurs, and people under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power forefit their rights.
  3. If they aren’t legal enemy combatants, then they are “ILLEGAL enemy combatants”.
  4. They don’t have rights.

That’s fucked up.[/quote]

In previous wars they were hung in the town square or shot.

The only fucked up thing about this war is we let them live.

93

[quote]orion wrote:
…

And that applies to prisoners that were kidnapped by the US all around the globe or handed over by Pakistanis or Afghans in what way?

…[/quote]

This is a global war. As much as parts of Europe would like to sit it out they cannot. Since they refuse to cooperate we must do what we must do, just as in all other wars.

You guys seem really naive.

94

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…

And that applies to prisoners that were kidnapped by the US all around the globe or handed over by Pakistanis or Afghans in what way?

…

This is a global war. As much as parts of Europe would like to sit it out they cannot. Since they refuse to cooperate we must do what we must do, just as in all other wars.

You guys seem really naive. [/quote]

That is cute, ALL the World is a battlefield and this war will NEVER EVER end because it is a war on a strategy, a concept…

Which is why the US can do whatever they fuck they want…

Have fun, without us…

Buhuhu, 3000 people have died, and now all civilizing regulations and treaties fly out of the window.

Pussies!

There is no other way to put it.

Freedom does not come free. In that case it cost 3000 lives. Car travel costs 10 times more in the US EACH YEAR!

Where is the war on the combustion engine? Where is automotive security cracking down on fast or drunk driving? Where is the widespread spying on US citizens? They might lend “Fast and Furious”, they might lend a book on how to pimp their engine.

Granted, an airplane hitting a tower does look spectacular. Excellent selling point.

It is not so much the case that European liberals are scared shitless, willing to abandon all the freedoms men have fought and died for, oh no, American conservatives have their panties in a bunch.

So, if you girly men could please stop telling us that we don?t understand, that we are cowards, and whatever else you feel like projecting on us, because you cannot deal with it at home and within your hearts and souls.

We get it. We just don?t scare as easily and we value our freedom.

We are John Wayne baby, we are true conservativism!

Uff, feeling better now…

95

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…

And that applies to prisoners that were kidnapped by the US all around the globe or handed over by Pakistanis or Afghans in what way?

…

This is a global war. As much as parts of Europe would like to sit it out they cannot. Since they refuse to cooperate we must do what we must do, just as in all other wars.

You guys seem really naive.

That is cute, ALL the World is a battlefield and this war will NEVER EVER end because it is a war on a strategy, a concept…

Which is why the US can do whatever they fuck they want…

Have fun, without us…

Buhuhu, 3000 people have died, and now all civilizing regulations and treaties fly out of the window.

Pussies!

There is no other way to put it.

Freedom does not come free. In that case it cost 3000 lives. Car travel costs 10 times more in the US EACH YEAR!

Where is the war on the combustion engine? Where is automotive security cracking down on fast or drunk driving? Where is the widespread spying on US citizens? They might lend “Fast and Furious”, they might lend a book on how to pimp their engine.

Granted, an airplane hitting a tower does look spectacular. Excellent selling point.

It is not so much the case that European liberals are scared shitless, willing to abandon all the freedoms men have fought and died for, oh no, American conservatives have their panties in a bunch.

So, if you girly men could please stop telling us that we don?t understand, that we are cowards, and whatever else you feel like projecting on us, because you cannot deal with it at home and within your hearts and souls.

We get it. We just don?t scare as easily and we value our freedom.

We are John Wayne baby, we are true conservativism!

Uff, feeling better now…[/quote]

THE stupidest post ever.

96

[quote]rainjack wrote:
THE stupidest post ever. [/quote]

Not when you, Zap en ZEB are posting here.

Give yourself credit man.

97

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
rainjack wrote:
THE stupidest post ever.

Not when you, Zap en ZEB are posting here.

Give yourself credit man.[/quote]

Thanks for putting me in such good company.

:slight_smile:

98

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
rainjack wrote:
THE stupidest post ever.

Not when you, Zap en ZEB are posting here.

Give yourself credit man.

Thanks for putting me in such good company.

:)[/quote]

I second that, ZEB. I had no idea I ranked so high. I think I might start selling autographs.

99

European (french) humour:

100

Austria! Let’s put all the prisoners in Austria! Whose better had coming up with a good concentration camp system than an Austrian?

We could put one in Braunau, one in Linz, one outside of Vienna,…

HH