Michael Moore's Letter To George W. Bush

[crisis]

[lithuanianmafia]

Somehow, I don't think the 1949 document included men who come in from other countries (Iran and Syria mainly), bomb innocent Iraqi citizens, and fight American and British troops as "inhabitants of a non-occupied" territory. And since when is Iraq a "non-occupied" territory?
Also, it says "Provided they respect the laws and customs of war." Was cutting off the head of Daniel Pearl part of that law? Is blowing up innocent Iraqis part of that law? You are WAY off base here!

I'll repeat... the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to terrorists!

first off, Daniel Pearl was NOT executed in Iraq, and therefore does NOT apply under international law to this war.

Here is some more information from the most current revision of the Convention

"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Despite the fact that to those involved in Iraq clearly do not fall within any of these definitions of Prisoner of War, this is where Section 5 comes into play

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

[Pando]

Somehow, I don't think the 1949 document included men who come in from other countries (Iran and Syria mainly), bomb innocent Iraqi citizens, and fight American and British troops as "inhabitants of a non-occupied" territory. And since when is Iraq a "non-occupied" territory?
Also, it says "Provided they respect the laws and customs of war." Was cutting off the head of Daniel Pearl part of that law? Is blowing up innocent Iraqis part of that law? You are WAY off base here!

I'll repeat... the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to terrorists!

So because some american soldier went berserk and killed civilians in a war does it mean all american soldiers lose their rights? No. If some wackos execute a reporter does it mean that you can treat people totally unrelated and even captured in a totally different country any way you want? No.
...and you're accusing someone of being off base.

A few quotes from the Geneva Convention, proving your earlier points wrong, but you wont read them anyway.

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

EVEN IF it was so that "terrorists" wasn't covered, this article show's indisputable evidence that you're still wrong, or have I totally missed a COMPETENT tribunal PROVING this to be so? No? I didn't think so.
Human rights 1
Fanatics 0

But you are forgetting that in a time of war, rights change.

VS

Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

Owned.

This is getting boring, but now I know the saying is true, you can lead a horse to the water but obviously you cannot force it to drink...


EDIT: I see that Lith beat me to some of the replies...

[lithuanianmafia]

looks like we were going on the same wavelength pando

[Pando]

looks like we were going on the same wavelength pando

Indeed, do you think we'll get a proper, well constructed reply, a thanks for clearing up some of his inaccuracies, an apology or none of the above?

[Fleet 500]

You know, I could reply to all of your comments, but we would just be going around and around (and around).

Like the other poster said a few weeks back (werty), I doubt you are going to change your opinions and I know your not going to change mine.

It might be worth it if there were an equal number of conservatives debating against you liberals, but I don't think that is going to happen.

[lithuanianmafia]

You know, I could reply to all of your comments, but we would just be going around and around (and around).

Like the other poster said a few weeks back (werty), I doubt you are going to change your opinions and I know your not going to change mine.

It might be worth it if there were an equal number of conservatives debating against you liberals, but I don't think that is going to happen.

in other words, you don't have a comeback, lol

[Coventrysucks]

you liberals

What's the word for this?

Being totally against people of other races = Racism
Being totally against homosexuals = homophobic
Being totally against people of other political view points = ???

[Fleet 500]

in other words, you don't have a comeback, lol

No, if you check past threads you will see I'm quite capable of debating. I could research and challenge and post facts to back up what I say. I've done it before. But will it really do any good? You guys will discount anything I post, so why should I spend time I don't have doing that? I've done it over and over and over again. Why do it yet again?

[Esperante]

But will it really do any good? You guys will discount anything I post, so why should I spend time I don't have doing that? I've done it over and over and over again. Why do it yet again?

By that logic you shouldn't even be debating.

[crisis]

You know, I could reply to all of your comments, but we would just be going around and around (and around).

Like the other poster said a few weeks back (werty), I doubt you are going to change your opinions and I know your not going to change mine.

It might be worth it if there were an equal number of conservatives debating against you liberals, but I don't think that is going to happen.

Perhaps I am wrong and not all conservatives are slaves to the neocon propaganda. Perhaps the other conservatives dont agree with you just because they are conservatives.
There is hope.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

They say insanity is repeating the same action over and over expecting a different result.

I'll just leave it there.