Law School Discussion

Poll

What political party do you belong to?

Democrat
Republican
Communist
Socalist
Independant/Other

What political party do most law students belong to?

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #160 on: May 30, 2008, 09:56:47 AM »
Quote
Saddam's torture chambers and gassing of the Kurds was a result of the civil war in Iraq, he shouldn't be held accountable for crimes committed during a war and we have no way of knowing whether or not he specified to torture the Iraqis or gas the kurds.

By your rationale most independent observers have said that the rape rooms were operated by Uday and not Saddam.  So it is ok then right?  Saddam shouldn't be held accountable for something we cannot connect him to.  In terms of being certain I am certain enough in my claims to say that the US government turned a blind eye to the atrocities and in some cases encouraged them.

Ok, you are confusing the difference between the head of state having knowledge about something and the government orchestrating it. If a General in Iraq set up rape rooms and purposefully hid it from the President, then I would still consider it the government's doing (albeit unknowingly). If A colonel rapes an Iraqi woman, that is a crime attributed to that individual.

Claiming that the US government turned a blind eye and encouraged some of these cases is unverifiable and inconsistant with the evidence that is available. It is simply your opinion and nothing else.

Tim according to Paul Bremer he informed Bush on January 16, 2004.  Bush acted on Abu Ghraib after 60 minutes aired in April

Well, once again a bush hating liberal mixes up the truth to paint bush with the 'evil' brush.
You've inspired me to rebut....
The army found out about the abuse at Abu Gharib on January 13th and launched a criminal investigation on January 14th.  One day later.
Bush was briefed by Rumsfeld and General Pace in February.
By March 20th, 6 soldiers were facing charges.  17 were suspended by February 26th.
Here's the AP's timeline.
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/abughraib-timeline.htm
All I had to do was google, instead of either inventing truths or listening to George Soros....
The President's job is like a CEO's job.  Disciplining military personnel at a remote prison during war time isn't in his job desciption.  It IS the military's job to handle it at a lower level.  It was handled.  Why the anti-bush crowd wants to portray the President's job as a micromanaging robot who never makes mistake is beyond reasonable and shows that they merely wish to destroy Bush out of hatred instead of their stated desire of 'accountability'.
And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you are increasingly hostile.  Is it that time of the month, or do you just get all riled up talking about things that you made up your mind about while listening to shouters?

Absolutely I am hostile about this.  I admitted to being wrong on the dates.  I however am not wrong on us sending people off to be tortured.  It is well documented.  I believe I have been pretty open minded about this whole thing, I have acknowledged fault where it lies, accepted responsibility for my falsehoods.  I wish you would do the same, but I forget being a Republican in your mind means never admitting you are wrong and never backing down from something as inconvenient as the truth.  I have no problems with some of the Republicans on this board even though I disagree with them.  I light heartedly joke with them certainly, but overly hostile?  Never.  I certainly do not dismiss them merely because they are a conservative. 

And I forgot that being a liberal means you are angry, have no problem inventing facts, have no issue with making statements that are contradictory, and quick to label people as a republican or a conservative.  For the record, I am more of a libertarian than conservative.  But I also don't jump all over message boards pushing my hatred of Bush all over the place.  I am not here to agree with you, nor am I here to defend Bush.  YOU blasted Bush, holding him responsible for Abu Gharib and railing on him about torture all the while forgiving and dismissing Hussein's direct culpability in the rape rooms and torture rooms at the royal palaces.  He isn't responsible for Abu Gharib - that was dealt with efficiently and correctly.  Blaming Bush for Abu Gharib is like blaming Hussein for RAP.  Do we torture?  According to the government's definition, no.  
I've thought about this and I realize it's dangerous ground, but if I had a detainee who I knew had information that could save hundreds, thousands or millions of lives, I might use some techniques that were less than ethical to obtain information.
I wouldn't break his shoulders and force him to sleep, arms shackled above his head like McCain was subject to, but I've seen journalists undergo waterboarding.  It doesn't hurt, it just scares people.  It is demonized in the media as if we waterboard every prisoner immediately after detaining them.  
That said, things could be dangerous and go to far.  It needs to be limited in scope and application with oversight.  But I do believe that since 9/11, America is safer.  Maybe it is that we've scared the terrorists into leaving us pretty much alone.  Maybe it's that they perceive Bush as a cowboy.  Maybe it's that we've taken out several of their leadership and decimated their supplies.
Maybe it's dumb luck.
I'm fine with any of the above.

Remedialone

  • ***
  • 98
  • Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #161 on: May 30, 2008, 10:12:57 AM »
Quote
Saddam's torture chambers and gassing of the Kurds was a result of the civil war in Iraq, he shouldn't be held accountable for crimes committed during a war and we have no way of knowing whether or not he specified to torture the Iraqis or gas the kurds.

By your rationale most independent observers have said that the rape rooms were operated by Uday and not Saddam.  So it is ok then right?  Saddam shouldn't be held accountable for something we cannot connect him to.  In terms of being certain I am certain enough in my claims to say that the US government turned a blind eye to the atrocities and in some cases encouraged them.

Ok, you are confusing the difference between the head of state having knowledge about something and the government orchestrating it. If a General in Iraq set up rape rooms and purposefully hid it from the President, then I would still consider it the government's doing (albeit unknowingly). If A colonel rapes an Iraqi woman, that is a crime attributed to that individual.

Claiming that the US government turned a blind eye and encouraged some of these cases is unverifiable and inconsistant with the evidence that is available. It is simply your opinion and nothing else.

Tim according to Paul Bremer he informed Bush on January 16, 2004.  Bush acted on Abu Ghraib after 60 minutes aired in April

Well, once again a bush hating liberal mixes up the truth to paint bush with the 'evil' brush.
You've inspired me to rebut....
The army found out about the abuse at Abu Gharib on January 13th and launched a criminal investigation on January 14th.  One day later.
Bush was briefed by Rumsfeld and General Pace in February.
By March 20th, 6 soldiers were facing charges.  17 were suspended by February 26th.
Here's the AP's timeline.
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/abughraib-timeline.htm
All I had to do was google, instead of either inventing truths or listening to George Soros....
The President's job is like a CEO's job.  Disciplining military personnel at a remote prison during war time isn't in his job desciption.  It IS the military's job to handle it at a lower level.  It was handled.  Why the anti-bush crowd wants to portray the President's job as a micromanaging robot who never makes mistake is beyond reasonable and shows that they merely wish to destroy Bush out of hatred instead of their stated desire of 'accountability'.
And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you are increasingly hostile.  Is it that time of the month, or do you just get all riled up talking about things that you made up your mind about while listening to shouters?

Absolutely I am hostile about this.  I admitted to being wrong on the dates.  I however am not wrong on us sending people off to be tortured.  It is well documented.  I believe I have been pretty open minded about this whole thing, I have acknowledged fault where it lies, accepted responsibility for my falsehoods.  I wish you would do the same, but I forget being a Republican in your mind means never admitting you are wrong and never backing down from something as inconvenient as the truth.  I have no problems with some of the Republicans on this board even though I disagree with them.  I light heartedly joke with them certainly, but overly hostile?  Never.  I certainly do not dismiss them merely because they are a conservative. 

And I forgot that being a liberal means you are angry, have no problem inventing facts, have no issue with making statements that are contradictory, and quick to label people as a republican or a conservative.  For the record, I am more of a libertarian than conservative.  But I also don't jump all over message boards pushing my hatred of Bush all over the place.  I am not here to agree with you, nor am I here to defend Bush.  YOU blasted Bush, holding him responsible for Abu Gharib and railing on him about torture all the while forgiving and dismissing Hussein's direct culpability in the rape rooms and torture rooms at the royal palaces.  He isn't responsible for Abu Gharib - that was dealt with efficiently and correctly.  Blaming Bush for Abu Gharib is like blaming Hussein for RAP.  Do we torture?  According to the government's definition, no. 
I've thought about this and I realize it's dangerous ground, but if I had a detainee who I knew had information that could save hundreds, thousands or millions of lives, I might use some techniques that were less than ethical to obtain information.
I wouldn't break his shoulders and force him to sleep, arms shackled above his head like McCain was subject to, but I've seen journalists undergo waterboarding.  It doesn't hurt, it just scares people.  It is demonized in the media as if we waterboard every prisoner immediately after detaining them. 
That said, things could be dangerous and go to far.  It needs to be limited in scope and application with oversight.  But I do believe that since 9/11, America is safer.  Maybe it is that we've scared the terrorists into leaving us pretty much alone.  Maybe it's that they perceive Bush as a cowboy.  Maybe it's that we've taken out several of their leadership and decimated their supplies.
Maybe it's dumb luck.
I'm fine with any of the above.

Ok, once again, SAME point, this is not only about Abu Ghraib, there are other sources of the torture claim.  Since waterboarding is harmless what do you think of thishttp://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866.  It is nice to hear libertarians stick up for torture.  I am sure that is one of their central planks.  You believe it is safer?  Evidence?  I have owned up to my mis-statement, I appologize it was wrong, I got my dates confused.  Does that mean we don't ship people off to be tortured?  Do we do the torture ourselves?  We signed the Geneva treaties, we agree that waterboarding legally fits the definition of torture.  Discomfort and fear are covered in the definition of torture.  They should be held responsible for the crimes for blurring the lines of ethical treatment of prisoners.

TimMitchell

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #162 on: May 30, 2008, 10:33:24 AM »
Quote
Every single war the United States has fought, with the exception of the Spanish-American War and the Indian Wars (both 19th century imperialist wars of aggression, what an *odd* coincidence), has been free of systemic abuses of enemy combatants. Until this one. Believing that they are being treated "far better in this war than in any other war in history" requires willful ignorance of history and of current events. I can think of at least half a dozen off the top of my head that the US was involved in (and another half dozen we weren't).

Comparing soldiers account of treatment of POWs during Vietnam and WW2 against the current war you will find there are far fewer accounts of condoned abuse proportional to the amount of solders on the ground and length of invasion. Also, your asseration that this war has resulted in "systematic abuse" is unfounded. Although there have been abuse at the hands of solders I believe that they were not initated or condoned by the government.

Martin Prince, Jr.

  • ****
  • 148
  • Excelsior!
    • View Profile
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #163 on: May 30, 2008, 02:14:08 PM »
Quote
Every single war the United States has fought, with the exception of the Spanish-American War and the Indian Wars (both 19th century imperialist wars of aggression, what an *odd* coincidence), has been free of systemic abuses of enemy combatants. Until this one. Believing that they are being treated "far better in this war than in any other war in history" requires willful ignorance of history and of current events. I can think of at least half a dozen off the top of my head that the US was involved in (and another half dozen we weren't).

Comparing soldiers account of treatment of POWs during Vietnam and WW2 against the current war you will find there are far fewer accounts of condoned abuse proportional to the amount of solders on the ground and length of invasion. Also, your asseration that this war has resulted in "systematic abuse" is unfounded. Although there have been abuse at the hands of solders I believe that they were not initated or condoned by the government.

To be blunt: Blaming this on "a few bad apples" is, frankly, insulting, both to my intelligence and to the uniform I wore for 4 years.

THE AL QAHTANI DEBACLE
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05162008/sandsessay.html

"Verschärfte Vernehmung" [German for "Enhanced Interrogation"]
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html

Coming in From the Cold: CIA Spy Calls Waterboarding Necessary But Torture
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231&page=1

Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256&page=1

A tale of two decisions (or, how the FBI gets you to confess)
http://www.psychsound.com/2007/10/a_tale_of_two_decisions_or_how.html

Krauthammer on Fox
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/krauthammer-on.html
Which I'll quote from:
Quote
The defenders of torture are always saying that it can be used "judiciously" and in extremely limited circumstances, that it can be controlled within the executive branch; that it need not metastasize into a  broader policy, and need not trickle down to others. But from all the facts we now know, this executive decision to rescind the Geneva Conventions began with cases that were already beneath the "ticking time bomb" scenario, and within months spread like wildfire across every theater of combat, including every major branch of the armed services, leading to scores of deaths in interrogation, almost casual if brutal torture of (often innocent) suspects in Afghanistan and Iraq, secret torture sites in Eastern Europe, God knows what in outsourced torture in the grim redoubts of Uzbek, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian police states, and, of course, the excrescence of Abu Ghraib, which Bush had the gall to say he had nothing to do with.

I have studied this topic in detail and there is simply no other war in American history (with the exceptions I cited before) that compares. World War 2, for its incredibly vast size and scope, was for the United States almost entirely composed of engagement with uniformed militaries of industrialized nations, and the procedures laid out in the Geneva and Hague conventions were strictly followed, with very little deviation. Extending the protections of the 4th Article of the Geneva Conventions (POW status) to the Viet Cong resulted in similar treatment.

The links above are all valuable in their own different ways, but the important takeaways are: this stuff was condoned and instigated at the highest levels for little benefit, and spread rapidly and systemically (note also that I did not say "systematic" but "systemic," there is a small but very important difference in meaning). Denying these events, and I don't mean to insult, requires the denial of objective reality.

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #164 on: May 30, 2008, 09:02:40 PM »
I have studied this topic in detail and there is simply no other war in American history (with the exceptions I cited before) that compares. World War 2, for its incredibly vast size and scope, was for the United States almost entirely composed of engagement with uniformed militaries of industrialized nations, and the procedures laid out in the Geneva and Hague conventions were strictly followed, with very little deviation. Extending the protections of the 4th Article of the Geneva Conventions (POW status) to the Viet Cong resulted in similar treatment.

The Viet Cong wore uniforms (most of them did anyway).
In Iraq, insurgents don't wear uniforms.
Al Qaeda doesn't wear uniforms.
Terrorist groups don't wear uniforms.
The Geneva conventions do not apply to terrorists.  Go take a look at those conventions and you'll see that they refer to organized, uniformed military personnel.
And extending the geneva conventions to the Viet Cong didn't result in them observing them either.  Thousands of POW's were tortured, brutally.  Many are still MIA.  It also didn't work with Japan during WW2.
And Al Qaeda doesn't follow the geneva conventions.  One important concept behind the conventions was that during wartime, it is important to treat POW's as well as possible because we never knew who would be our allies in the future.  It also meant that the other guys usually followed it as well.  Al Qaeda will never be our allies and refuse to follow the conventions themselves.  Why should we treat them better than they treat our military personnel?  Our personnel wouldn't be anywhere near them if not for their instigation in the first place.  I once argued that we were honor bound to treat them better than they treat our soldiers; that regardless of the pain and discomfort they may bring upon one of our servicemen, we should rise above and treat them with basic human decency.  That is until I heard about the beheadings and saw the pictures of private security forces strung up by their feet, burned beyond recognition as a human being, and beaten with sticks by hate filled lunatics.
I'm sorry, but if they wish to be treated like a regimented, disciplined military when caught, they should wear uniforms and stop hiding amongst crowds of innocents, dont you think?
I admire your service, but I respectfully disagree.

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #165 on: May 30, 2008, 09:15:32 PM »
"They don't so we don't have to either" is a pathetic argument.  I thought we were taking the high road, jeffis?

Also,

The Viet Cong wore uniforms (most of them did anyway).

Link?

Also,

@#!* off.

 :)

ETA:

Also,

hate filled lunatics.

They are.  But my HFL detector says they aren't the only ones.

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #166 on: May 30, 2008, 10:17:21 PM »
I have studied this topic in detail and there is simply no other war in American history (with the exceptions I cited before) that compares. World War 2, for its incredibly vast size and scope, was for the United States almost entirely composed of engagement with uniformed militaries of industrialized nations, and the procedures laid out in the Geneva and Hague conventions were strictly followed, with very little deviation. Extending the protections of the 4th Article of the Geneva Conventions (POW status) to the Viet Cong resulted in similar treatment.

The Viet Cong wore uniforms (most of them did anyway).

No, the NVA did:



The Viet Cong were insurgents, and looked like this:



or this:



Of course, the US thought they looked like these:


(at Mai Lai).

TimMitchell

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #167 on: May 31, 2008, 08:00:02 AM »
I have studied this topic in detail and there is simply no other war in American history (with the exceptions I cited before) that compares. World War 2, for its incredibly vast size and scope, was for the United States almost entirely composed of engagement with uniformed militaries of industrialized nations, and the procedures laid out in the Geneva and Hague conventions were strictly followed, with very little deviation. Extending the protections of the 4th Article of the Geneva Conventions (POW status) to the Viet Cong resulted in similar treatment.

The Viet Cong wore uniforms (most of them did anyway).
In Iraq, insurgents don't wear uniforms.
Al Qaeda doesn't wear uniforms.
Terrorist groups don't wear uniforms.
The Geneva conventions do not apply to terrorists.  Go take a look at those conventions and you'll see that they refer to organized, uniformed military personnel.
And extending the geneva conventions to the Viet Cong didn't result in them observing them either.  Thousands of POW's were tortured, brutally.  Many are still MIA.  It also didn't work with Japan during WW2.
And Al Qaeda doesn't follow the geneva conventions.  One important concept behind the conventions was that during wartime, it is important to treat POW's as well as possible because we never knew who would be our allies in the future.  It also meant that the other guys usually followed it as well.  Al Qaeda will never be our allies and refuse to follow the conventions themselves.  Why should we treat them better than they treat our military personnel?  Our personnel wouldn't be anywhere near them if not for their instigation in the first place.  I once argued that we were honor bound to treat them better than they treat our soldiers; that regardless of the pain and discomfort they may bring upon one of our servicemen, we should rise above and treat them with basic human decency.  That is until I heard about the beheadings and saw the pictures of private security forces strung up by their feet, burned beyond recognition as a human being, and beaten with sticks by hate filled lunatics.
I'm sorry, but if they wish to be treated like a regimented, disciplined military when caught, they should wear uniforms and stop hiding amongst crowds of innocents, dont you think?
I admire your service, but I respectfully disagree.

I disagree that we should ignore Geneva conventions simply because our opponents do not wear uniforms and torture out solders. We need to take the higher road lest we become as bad as them. However, the solution to this would be to go in with more force and start treating the insurgencey for what it is. It's just like the rationale for dropping Nukes on Japan, we may need to be brutal now to prevent more death in the future. I'm not advocating dropping a nuke,
of couse, I'm saying we need to treat the insurgencey more seriously.

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #168 on: May 31, 2008, 01:00:19 PM »
"They don't so we don't have to either" is a pathetic argument.  I thought we were taking the high road, jeffis?

Also,

The Viet Cong wore uniforms (most of them did anyway).

Link?

Also,

@#!* off.

 :)

ETA:

Also,

hate filled lunatics.

They are.  But my HFL detector says they aren't the only ones.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/others.htm
happy?

Re: What political party do most law students belong to?
« Reply #169 on: May 31, 2008, 01:02:33 PM »
http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=799
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8911
http://www.diggerhistory3.info/combat/page/se-asia04-viet-cong.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/weapons_02.html
"Uniform
N.V.A. soldiers dressed in simple green canvas uniforms. Viet Cong troops, who needed to blend in with local populations, most often wore black Ho Chi Minh-style loose pants."

Yeah, so since you seem to like links, I thought I'd give you some.
Or, you could do what I did and google "viet cong uniform" and you'll get a few thousand.