Article 45.1

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I have not seen your explanation on the anthrax! however. I believe Bush has stated that we will go after terrorism were ever it exists!

He's stated a lot of things. When there is one group of terrorists who killed 3000 Americans, I think the wisest choice would be to use the overwhelming majority of your resources to fight that group, instead of diverting the majority of the resources to fighting groups that are just kind of like the one that attacked you and only of peripheral interest at the moment.

Oh - and the missing Anthrax, I won't go as in depth here, but it has to do with the fact that employees of a government like Hussein's are more than willing to forge documents indicating higher than actual production levels of - you name it - to save their jobs and/or lives. I'm not saying that's what happened, its just a possible explanation.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I guess Bush was just after the oil then right?

\



It's hard to tell exactly what he was after. We know

A) The atrocities were irrelevant to him, as he stated at the time he would not invade iraq if Hussein allowed full access to inpectors.

B) The WMD were irrelevant, he claims he would have invaded anyway.

C) The two above statements are contradictory, hence Bush is a liar

D) That leaves oil as one possible explanation, though I think pure politics is probably the correct one.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Alright Spidey - this is a senseless debate! we both have made our points and it is not going anywere! I am out on this one.

Fair enough. I'm outta here as well.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by spillmind
funny how the original questions NEVER get answered, and it becomes a roundabout bunch of tangents

one little point on one little tangent, and they all think they were totally right about everything all along.

Spill his original question was answered long ago the thing is nobody gives a fuck about article 45.1 and the Geneva Convention, this is war man! Its fucking brutal! But hey we all gotta deal with it. I personally give a shit a lot more about Americans than some terrorist Baathists in Guantanamo. Listen, they are probably getting a lot better living conditions and are healthier and safer than they would be in Iraq right now so we should be applauded for helping these criminals. If not then i've got to tell you since we are the richest and toughest nation on the planet try and bring some charges over these losers at Gitmo and see if anything comes of it, i'll be waiting for Bush to be tried alongside Milosevic.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
And I should say I hope no one here takes anything I say personally, that is, except Rambo

Jethro, how can I take something personally from somebody I don't respect? Your a dumbass and a pacifist pussy, that doesn't deserve any respect.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Wow, real facts. Most of the people who reply to me don't have many of those. Thanks!

OK then, so are you saying that the President may only singlehandedly withdraw from a treaty if he withdraws from it pursuant to the treaty itself? Did the courts make the answer to that clear? Do the Geneva Conventions provide a mechanism to do this?

I don't know if the Geneva Convention includes a process for withdrawing by the treaty, but I doubt we would be bound to follow the process if we terminate the treaty itself. I don't know if this has ever been debated.

I suppose that there is an argument that the United States (through Bush's actions) has implicitly withdrawn from Article 45.1 by ignoring it, although I doubt we would want to withdraw from that particular article. As for whether Bush is acting illegally in violating the Geneva Convention, I don't know. As I said, there are probably a number of legal arguments that he is not, based on war powers, etc. I just don't know how such arguments would hold up.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by OCA
Spill his original question was answered long ago the thing is nobody gives a fuck about article 45.1 and the Geneva Convention, this is war man! Its fucking brutal! But hey we all gotta deal with it. I personally give a shit a lot more about Americans than some terrorist Baathists in Guantanamo. Listen, they are probably getting a lot better living conditions and are healthier and safer than they would be in Iraq right now so we should be applauded for helping these criminals. If not then i've got to tell you since we are the richest and toughest nation on the planet try and bring some charges over these losers at Gitmo and see if anything comes of it, i'll be waiting for Bush to be tried alongside Milosevic.

His original question was never actually answered, and it is probably a complex legal question whether Bush is violating the Treaty and the U.S. law by labeling these men "enemy combatants" and not affording them the rights under the Geneva Convention. I highly doubt that this would be impeachable. However, I do share Spidey's concern that we (as a country) might be ignoring the rule of law when it suits us, and depriving these men of the rights that we ourselves hold as necessary for free society (I realize that Guatanamo is not a free society). It seems contradictory to all that we revere and profess.