Fahrenheit 9/11 Thread...

[Penn]

Originally posted by Pete

Where is your beloved UN? That pillar of humanity and concience who smugly claim jurisdiction? Where is the institution that liberals all want us to kneel before and submit to like a beat dog?

What exactly are THEY doing about any of this? NOTHING, they sit in NY passing resolutions, catterwalling and hoping we will take the lead in EVERY problem that crops up.

What I think is reprehensable is to have his own intelligence(Kerry) in the Senate intel committee, independent of the White House, that he used, came to the same conclusion, made public statements supporting that, voted FOR it and is not flopping because of the political winds blowing.

I still thing he believed it, I think he believes it still yet he won't say so.

He is Mr DOOM and GLOOM, Mr. Negative.

Typical Democrat, "Look how bad things are. How awfull !! You should really be scared about all this, and even more scared about other things."

"I cannot tell you how I will fix it, but I can say, trust me I can do better."

Add in a dash of good old class warfare how vilianous big business and the wealthy 1% are and how they made their money on your back, stealing it from you and you have the traditional campaign.

Dammit pete, you are on a roll!

Please forgive me for spacing your statements out in this quote, but they all have weight, and should be looked at individually.

These are the main reasons I will not vote for Kerry, he's an opportunist who will say anything to any crowd to get their support.

WHAT DOES HE REALLY BELIEVE IN? From day to day he changes his tune.

There was an interview he did with Peter Jennings, concerning the moment life begins for a child, a baby, and he stepped all over himself in his following statements, trying to explain his position.

I don't believe he really knows, he just runs off at the mouth saying whatever comes into his mind, without pre-thinking how it might sound, or what sense it makes to us listeners.

 

[tlatchaw]

I was in downtown Bethesda on Friday where I was accosted by a youngster (17-22 maybe?) with a clipboard that asked if I would like to "Help defeat George Bush." I had to rush for a my parking meter, so couldn't talk with him right then, but I wonder if they have anything positive to say, or if these folks are just trying to lean on "beat Bush" to carry the election?

It's hard to have a platform and a message with a candidate that so clearly exemplifies the typical lack of leadership by a politician. This guy Kerry will say ANYTHING and mean NOTHING! he contradicts himself almost every time he makes any sort of public statement.

How do they expect he American people to vote FOR somebody that cannot take a stand? Voting against George Bush probably won't be enough. Unless the Democrats can solve Kerry's credibility gap, it's over already.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by Ken King
Hey Pete, when you said,

Ever hear of the Geneva Conventions? If you read it you will discover that the taking of land beyond a nation’s legal boundaries is a violation of that pact, which Israel has agreed to adhere to. Territories gained beyond the established borders of the 1947 agreement are illegal in accordance with this bit of international law.

I believe they get around that by saying they are just "occupied territories" they have not annexed them and part of Isreal proper. As far as I know "occupation" of territories can go on forever. However they could be considered "conquered" lands since hostilities have ceased.

What is the article or protocal that prohibits seizure of conquered lands?

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
How do they expect he American people to vote FOR somebody that cannot take a stand? Voting against George Bush probably won't be enough. Unless the Democrats can solve Kerry's credibility gap, it's over already.

You have some serious points here tlatchaw, but we have to also remember that President Bush has a credibility gap of his own. Whether you think it is correct or not, the Bush Administration has one glaring example of falsehood in the public eye: the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the lack of a serious Iraq-al-Qaeda connection. More than half of this nation know believes that deciding to go into Iraq was the wrong action to take, and President Bush has to preempt those concerns. And frankly, saying that America is safer every five minutes because of the Iraq War will not cut it and neither will having Dick Cheney say that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were drinking buddies. On top of the Iraq credibility gap, there is the whole event that the Bush Administration did not release the true cost of its prescription drug benefit until after the benefit had passed.

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
It's hard to have a platform and a message with a candidate that so clearly exemplifies the typical lack of leadership by a politician. This guy Kerry will say ANYTHING and mean NOTHING! he contradicts himself almost every time he makes any sort of public statement.

How do they expect he American people to vote FOR somebody that cannot take a stand? Voting against George Bush probably won't be enough. Unless the Democrats can solve Kerry's credibility gap, it's over already.

I saw an opinion piece, in the last day or two, that opined(?) that very thought; and I said to my self:

"That is probably closer to the truth than anything else I've heard lately about J.F. Kerry".

It seems the overall driving factor in this Democratic onslaught against the president is fueled by their hatred of him.

They can't, and possibly never will forgive him, "in their minds" for "stealing" the last election. Even after 4 major news organizations went down to Florida and pronounced the results fair.

NOW, the dumb@$$ed democraps want the UN to come in and monitor OUR Presidential Election process to ensure it's accuracy!

The bumbling, ineffective, irrelevant UN!!!!

Will somebody somewhere save us form this madness?

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Pete
I believe they get around that by saying they are just "occupied territories" they have not annexed them and part of Isreal proper. As far as I know "occupation" of territories can go on forever. However they could be considered "conquered" lands since hostilities have ceased.

What is the article or protocal that prohibits seizure of conquered lands?

Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention pertaining to the law of belligerent occupation, prohibits the occupant from annexing occupied territory, imposing its sovereignty over it or taking any measures of a sovereign nature. Since the United Nations was established in 1945, the use of force no longer enables an occupant to claim a right to sovereignty over occupied lands

Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Setting up colonies (or settlements) is an annexation and the ever changing borders which have been modified since 1947 seem in direct conflict with these rules.

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by Ken King
Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention pertaining to the law of belligerent occupation, prohibits the occupant from annexing occupied territory, imposing its sovereignty over it or taking any measures of a sovereign nature. Since the United Nations was established in 1945, the use of force no longer enables an occupant to claim a right to sovereignty over occupied lands

Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Setting up colonies (or settlements) is an annexation and the ever changing borders which have been modified since 1947 seem in direct conflict with these rules.

Ken, you have misinterpreted that section. That section just means an occupying or annexing power may not perform changes to the institutions of government or take any other initiative that will remove any persons rights under the Convention. Issues of soveriegnty have to deal with recognition by the U.N., I would believe.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by FromTexas
How does that apply to someone who defended against agression instead of being an aggressor? I could have sworn the Convention only specified someone could not acquire lands, materials, etc... through hostilities as an agressor. I could be wrong, but I think there is more to it than that, Ken.

In your instance, in defending from aggression, once the hostilities are ended you withdrawal back to your established boundaries.

If there is another article relating to what you speak I would like to see it, I could be wrong and just haven't read it. These documents are rather huge and it is possible that I could have missed it but I certainly don't recall anything like what you claim.

The fact that Israel has established settlements and is exercising control over those terrirtories as if it was there own seems violative towards the accord and in my mind it does not appear to be a protective measure. Not to mention other territorial gains made from the many years of that conflict. The maps have been changing a lot since Israel was granted independence and given a defined parcel of land.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by Ken King

Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

I read this as saying that the persons of the occupied territory cannot be deprived of protections of the Geneva convention due to annexing.

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by Pete
I read this as saying that the persons of the occupied territory cannot be deprived of protections of the Geneva convention due to annexing.

I figured out what I was thinking and had posted a different response above, Ken.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by Ken King

The maps have been changing a lot since Israel was granted independence and given a defined parcel of land.

Not that it matters much since their adversaries repeatedly announce that their intent is to drive Israel into the ocean and take it back for themselves.

 

[Penn]

Hey? About this Yellowcake story....

Joe Wilson: Patriot or Liar?

Instead, we get the story of former ambassador Joe Wilson, another Kerry foreign policy adviser. After achieving fame and media-darlinghood last year by charging that President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address claim -- that British intelligence reported that Iraq sought uranium in Africa -- was false, Wilson campaigned for John Kerry in at least six states on the Bush-Lied platform, even denouncing the vice president as "a lying son of a #####" at one Kerry event. This author of "The Politics of Truth" (Carroll & Graf) also launched a Web site called RestoreHonesty.com, which both endorses the Kerry campaign and is (still) endorsed by the Kerry campaign.

Too bad for Wilson -- and Kerry -- that bombshell investigations in both the United States and Britain have blown Wilson's reputation as a one-man truth squad to smithereens.

In short, Wilson has been exposed as a fraud, even as British intelligence claims (and, by extension, the president's statement on Iraq and uranium) have been confirmed. Will Kerry distance himself from Wilson as he has distanced himself from Berger?

Better not ask Kerry surrogate and national campaign co-chairman Max Cleland. Just this week, the former senator was still pushing nasty Wilsonian baby-talk as Democratic wisdom: President Bush "flat-out lied" on Iraq, he told reporters, and went to war "because he concluded his daddy was a failed president (because) he did not take out Saddam Hussein." Cleland's conclusion? Bush is "Mr. Macho Man." Candidate Kerry, he added, agrees with this psychoanalysis of foreign affairs.

Does he? I would love to hear the answer. Meanwhile, it's becoming clear that with experience like this, who needs hard knocks.

 

[FromTexas]

Now that I have a little time after my meeting to be more coherent in thought. Ken - The Geneva Convention is pretty much a people document. It does not deal with much more than the handling of people only (military prisoners, soldiers in combat, civilians, etc...). It is not a document that infers any special rights or privileges in relation to the spoils of war (other than protecting the property rights of people under occupation to some extent).

 

[Ken King]

Now I don't claim to be an expert on international law, but the final statement of Article 47 is clear as can be when it says, "nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory". Do a little research for yourselves on the matter and you will see that the UN does consider the acquisition of land as "spoils of war" to be unacceptable and illegal (they usually reference this specific article when making that distinction).

As a matter of recent fact the Supreme Court of Israel has said that the current protective wall does such annexation and is illegal and they must relocate it to avoid such annexation.

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by Ken King
Now I don't claim to be an expert on international law, but the final statement of Article 47 is clear as can be when it says, "nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory". Do a little research for yourselves on the matter and you will see that the UN does consider the acquisition of land as "spoils of war" to be unacceptable and illegal (they usually reference this specific article when making that distinction).

As a matter of recent fact the Supreme Court of Israel has said that the current protective wall does such annexation and is illegal and they must relocate it to avoid such annexation.

They aren't basing it on the Geneva Convention. The U.N. is not the Geneva Convention either.

Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory,

Read the above closely Ken. It says that just because you occupy a territory does not mean you can deny them their rights under the Convention. This means all the protections to people granted under the Conventions. This is why we have to do things like let the Red Cross check on prisoners in Iraq. Because even though we occupy, we must still follow the Convention.

nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Not only can you not take away their rights under the convention, but this statement says that even if you annex the territory, you still can not deny the people you have annexed their rights under the Convention. That is all it says. It says you can't subjugate rights of Convention just by claiming the territory as yours and declaring soveriengty. The rights of those people are still protected from mistreatment.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by FromTexas
Now that I have a little time after my meeting to be more coherent in thought. Ken - The Geneva Convention is pretty much a people document. It does not deal with much more than the handling of people only (military prisoners, soldiers in combat, civilians, etc...). It is not a document that infers any special rights or privileges in relation to the spoils of war (other than protecting the property rights of people under occupation to some extent).

Of course they are “people documents”; people make up the many nations of the world. But I still think that you are wrong as the Geneva Conventions are "a series of international treaties concluded in Geneva between 1864 and 1949 for the purpose of ameliorating the effects of war on soldiers and civilians.” These are basically the laws of war for civilized nations and include a variety of issues including the taking of another nation's territory by the victor.

 

[FromTexas]

soldiers and civilians

No, you said it right there. For soldiers and civilians. Not for the rights of the losing country. They are to protect PEOPLE in times of war. Not the entitlement of a nation to their lands back with a slap on the back and a better luck next time.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by FromTexas
No, you said it right there. For soldiers and civilians. Not for the rights of the losing country. They are to protect PEOPLE in times of war. Not the entitlement of a nation to their lands back with a slap on the back and a better luck next time.

And just what makes up a country? The land and the people. If you are so convinced that it is allowable to take the land when you have won a conflict show me any document since 1945 that allows for it. The date of 1945 is significant because prior to that it had been commonplace but after that it has been rejected by the Fourth Geneva Convention, the International Court of Justice, the UN and it has become an instrumental part of international law.

 

[FromTexas]

It is not rejected by the 4th Geneva Convention. Ken, you are wrong on this. I don't know how much more clear I can make the explanation up there. The land is there but can be under occupation or annexation of another country. Therefore, if Canada took us over, then we would all become Canadians. However, Canada could not abuse us, take our personal property without compensation, or keep us from leaving the country if we did not agree with staying under Candian rule (because the Geneva Convention protects certain rights of people under occupation/annexation by another country).

You then try to add merit to your argument by pointing to other accords, internation law, etc... However, none of those were the item being discussed. It was the Geneva Convention. I even said that other people determine sovereignty and rights in occupation/annexation situations like the U.N. However, the U.N. is not the Geneva Convention. Its like saying I can arrest you for robbery/manslaughter under speed limit laws - apples and oranges.

 

[FromTexas]

If you want appropriate material, here is the routinely followed internation law on treaties, how they are handled, and under what conditions can be accepted (and not considered under pressure, etc... just like in contracts).

Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties

This is where you would find material on countries settling claims at the end of a war. What has held up Israel's claim to those lands is the treaties it has signed.

A good case study is the Chinese annexation of Tibet (pretty much illegal, but hey, who is going to stop the Chinese?)