Comments on: Proud to be an American? http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: james http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-2114 james Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:59:05 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-2114 Oh yeah.... and which country polices itself so honestly and brutally as the US? I mean, these abuses were reported and investigated by the very institutions accused of committing them. Individuals in the Army committed the atrocites of Abu Gharaib, but the Army itself uncovered and exposed these crimes. The US is not flawless, but we are a just and trustworthy country with sound institutions that believe in ideals. I blame the extreme accusatory rhetoric on the lowest form of marketing: Creating a Disease so you can Sell the Cure. Just how horrible the current economic situation, diplomatic situation, security situation, etc. etc. is our modern day HALITOSIS. Electing the OTHER GUY is the Listerine. It happens every election cycle.... In truth, things aren't so bad... and things won't be that different no matter who is elected president. Oh yeah…. and which country polices itself so honestly and brutally as the US? I mean, these abuses were reported and investigated by the very institutions accused of committing them. Individuals in the Army committed the atrocites of Abu Gharaib, but the Army itself uncovered and exposed these crimes. The US is not flawless, but we are a just and trustworthy country with sound institutions that believe in ideals.

I blame the extreme accusatory rhetoric on the lowest form of marketing: Creating a Disease so you can Sell the Cure.

Just how horrible the current economic situation, diplomatic situation, security situation, etc. etc. is our modern day HALITOSIS. Electing the OTHER GUY is the Listerine. It happens every election cycle….

In truth, things aren’t so bad… and things won’t be that different no matter who is elected president.

]]> By: james http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-13121 james Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:59:00 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-13121 Oh yeah.... and which country polices itself so honestly and brutally as the US? I mean, these abuses were reported and investigated by the very institutions accused of committing them. Individuals in the Army committed the atrocites of Abu Gharaib, but the Army itself uncovered and exposed these crimes. The US is not flawless, but we are a just and trustworthy country with sound institutions that believe in ideals. I blame the extreme accusatory rhetoric on the lowest form of marketing: Creating a Disease so you can Sell the Cure. Just how horrible the current economic situation, diplomatic situation, security situation, etc. etc. is our modern day HALITOSIS. Electing the OTHER GUY is the Listerine. It happens every election cycle.... In truth, things aren't so bad... and things won't be that different no matter who is elected president. Oh yeah…. and which country polices itself so honestly and brutally as the US? I mean, these abuses were reported and investigated by the very institutions accused of committing them. Individuals in the Army committed the atrocites of Abu Gharaib, but the Army itself uncovered and exposed these crimes. The US is not flawless, but we are a just and trustworthy country with sound institutions that believe in ideals.

I blame the extreme accusatory rhetoric on the lowest form of marketing: Creating a Disease so you can Sell the Cure.

Just how horrible the current economic situation, diplomatic situation, security situation, etc. etc. is our modern day HALITOSIS. Electing the OTHER GUY is the Listerine. It happens every election cycle….

In truth, things aren’t so bad… and things won’t be that different no matter who is elected president.

]]> By: james http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-2113 james Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:49:26 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-2113 Surely, some of the abuses violated the spirit of the conventions. If we adhere to them even when we are not required, we maintain high moral ground. However, from a legal point of view, the administration is not guilty of a war crime. These charges are predicated on the notion that iraqi insurgents, al qaeda operatives, and everyone else affected by the administration are protected by the Third Geneva Convention. GCIII classifies combatants as "lawful" and protected if they fulfill all of these conditions: * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance * that of carrying arms openly * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war I would bet that most contemporary insurgents or al qaeda operatives violate one or more of those conditions. In a historic sense, they are similar to saboteurs and spies. This classification has been called "unlawful combatant"; many critics of the Bush administration question if such a category CAN exist. If you argue that it doesn't, than you equate anyone that doesn't fulfill those criteria to the civilians and "protected persons" covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Spy = Saboteur = Innocent Civilian. That's rather absurd. Once you accept the category, the next question is how to treat the "unlawful combatants". Under the GCIII, they can be prosecuted as normal criminals, instead of "protected persons". Recap: when a legal combatant kills a person in war, it's not murder, it's war. If a terrorist, spy, etc. kills, then it is murder and a common crime. How the American legal systems deals with Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW) that have committed a common crime is too long a topic to discuss here. There is hundreds of years of precedent and it is still evolving. Some parties want to treat such EPW's in the exact same procedural way as US citizens. Other parties think this unprecedented protection is unnecessary. The bottom line: the national law is murky, even if the international law is clear that normal legal code applies. There may be a violation of the law here, but not a WAR CRIME. The Bush Administration interpreted these issues without building consensus. Politically, this has proven to be very damaging. I fault the administration for not anticipating these complexities and sharing the decision making in order to build consensus. That is a political mistake, it's not a WAR CRIME. After some initial legal and political difficulties by the administration, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. If the administration doesn't adhere to the law, then they are guilty of violating national law, not international law. Finally, I fault the US government and the international community for not calling a Fifth Geneva Convention to address the complexities of combat between nations and international non-state actors such as Al Qaeda. Some argue this is unnecessary; however, I think building an international consensus would defuse the situational politically and diplomatically. Surely, some of the abuses violated the spirit of the conventions. If we adhere to them even when we are not required, we maintain high moral ground.

However, from a legal point of view, the administration is not guilty of a war crime. These charges are predicated on the notion that iraqi insurgents, al qaeda operatives, and everyone else affected by the administration are protected by the Third Geneva Convention. GCIII classifies combatants as “lawful” and protected if they fulfill all of these conditions:

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
* that of carrying arms openly
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

I would bet that most contemporary insurgents or al qaeda operatives violate one or more of those conditions. In a historic sense, they are similar to saboteurs and spies. This classification has been called “unlawful combatant”; many critics of the Bush administration question if such a category CAN exist. If you argue that it doesn’t, than you equate anyone that doesn’t fulfill those criteria to the civilians and “protected persons” covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Spy = Saboteur = Innocent Civilian. That’s rather absurd.

Once you accept the category, the next question is how to treat the “unlawful combatants”. Under the GCIII, they can be prosecuted as normal criminals, instead of “protected persons”.

Recap: when a legal combatant kills a person in war, it’s not murder, it’s war. If a terrorist, spy, etc. kills, then it is murder and a common crime.

How the American legal systems deals with Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW) that have committed a common crime is too long a topic to discuss here. There is hundreds of years of precedent and it is still evolving. Some parties want to treat such EPW’s in the exact same procedural way as US citizens. Other parties think this unprecedented protection is unnecessary. The bottom line: the national law is murky, even if the international law is clear that normal legal code applies. There may be a violation of the law here, but not a WAR CRIME.

The Bush Administration interpreted these issues without building consensus. Politically, this has proven to be very damaging. I fault the administration for not anticipating these complexities and sharing the decision making in order to build consensus. That is a political mistake, it’s not a WAR CRIME.

After some initial legal and political difficulties by the administration, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. If the administration doesn’t adhere to the law, then they are guilty of violating national law, not international law.

Finally, I fault the US government and the international community for not calling a Fifth Geneva Convention to address the complexities of combat between nations and international non-state actors such as Al Qaeda. Some argue this is unnecessary; however, I think building an international consensus would defuse the situational politically and diplomatically.

]]> By: james http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-13120 james Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:49:00 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-13120 Surely, some of the abuses violated the spirit of the conventions. If we adhere to them even when we are not required, we maintain high moral ground. However, from a legal point of view, the administration is not guilty of a war crime. These charges are predicated on the notion that iraqi insurgents, al qaeda operatives, and everyone else affected by the administration are protected by the Third Geneva Convention. GCIII classifies combatants as "lawful" and protected if they fulfill all of these conditions: * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance * that of carrying arms openly * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war I would bet that most contemporary insurgents or al qaeda operatives violate one or more of those conditions. In a historic sense, they are similar to saboteurs and spies. This classification has been called "unlawful combatant"; many critics of the Bush administration question if such a category CAN exist. If you argue that it doesn't, than you equate anyone that doesn't fulfill those criteria to the civilians and "protected persons" covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Spy = Saboteur = Innocent Civilian. That's rather absurd. Once you accept the category, the next question is how to treat the "unlawful combatants". Under the GCIII, they can be prosecuted as normal criminals, instead of "protected persons". Recap: when a legal combatant kills a person in war, it's not murder, it's war. If a terrorist, spy, etc. kills, then it is murder and a common crime. How the American legal systems deals with Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW) that have committed a common crime is too long a topic to discuss here. There is hundreds of years of precedent and it is still evolving. Some parties want to treat such EPW's in the exact same procedural way as US citizens. Other parties think this unprecedented protection is unnecessary. The bottom line: the national law is murky, even if the international law is clear that normal legal code applies. There may be a violation of the law here, but not a WAR CRIME. The Bush Administration interpreted these issues without building consensus. Politically, this has proven to be very damaging. I fault the administration for not anticipating these complexities and sharing the decision making in order to build consensus. That is a political mistake, it's not a WAR CRIME. After some initial legal and political difficulties by the administration, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. If the administration doesn't adhere to the law, then they are guilty of violating national law, not international law. Finally, I fault the US government and the international community for not calling a Fifth Geneva Convention to address the complexities of combat between nations and international non-state actors such as Al Qaeda. Some argue this is unnecessary; however, I think building an international consensus would defuse the situational politically and diplomatically. Surely, some of the abuses violated the spirit of the conventions. If we adhere to them even when we are not required, we maintain high moral ground.

However, from a legal point of view, the administration is not guilty of a war crime. These charges are predicated on the notion that iraqi insurgents, al qaeda operatives, and everyone else affected by the administration are protected by the Third Geneva Convention. GCIII classifies combatants as “lawful” and protected if they fulfill all of these conditions:

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
* that of carrying arms openly
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

I would bet that most contemporary insurgents or al qaeda operatives violate one or more of those conditions. In a historic sense, they are similar to saboteurs and spies. This classification has been called “unlawful combatant”; many critics of the Bush administration question if such a category CAN exist. If you argue that it doesn’t, than you equate anyone that doesn’t fulfill those criteria to the civilians and “protected persons” covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Spy = Saboteur = Innocent Civilian. That’s rather absurd.

Once you accept the category, the next question is how to treat the “unlawful combatants”. Under the GCIII, they can be prosecuted as normal criminals, instead of “protected persons”.

Recap: when a legal combatant kills a person in war, it’s not murder, it’s war. If a terrorist, spy, etc. kills, then it is murder and a common crime.

How the American legal systems deals with Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW) that have committed a common crime is too long a topic to discuss here. There is hundreds of years of precedent and it is still evolving. Some parties want to treat such EPW’s in the exact same procedural way as US citizens. Other parties think this unprecedented protection is unnecessary. The bottom line: the national law is murky, even if the international law is clear that normal legal code applies. There may be a violation of the law here, but not a WAR CRIME.

The Bush Administration interpreted these issues without building consensus. Politically, this has proven to be very damaging. I fault the administration for not anticipating these complexities and sharing the decision making in order to build consensus. That is a political mistake, it’s not a WAR CRIME.

After some initial legal and political difficulties by the administration, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. If the administration doesn’t adhere to the law, then they are guilty of violating national law, not international law.

Finally, I fault the US government and the international community for not calling a Fifth Geneva Convention to address the complexities of combat between nations and international non-state actors such as Al Qaeda. Some argue this is unnecessary; however, I think building an international consensus would defuse the situational politically and diplomatically.

]]> By: matt http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-2112 matt Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:24:37 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-2112 Our country is just! In the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention. Parhat never fought against the United States and the government concedes there's no evidence he ever intended to. He has been held for six years because he is linked to a Chinese separatist group that the military says has some ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. And it comes to light, he never was an instigator against the U.S. I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of these. Our country is just!
In the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention.
Parhat never fought against the United States and the government concedes there’s no evidence he ever intended to. He has been held for six years because he is linked to a Chinese separatist group that the military says has some ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. And it comes to light, he never was an instigator against the U.S.
I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of these.

]]> By: matt http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-13115 matt Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:24:00 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-13115 Our country is just! In the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention. Parhat never fought against the United States and the government concedes there's no evidence he ever intended to. He has been held for six years because he is linked to a Chinese separatist group that the military says has some ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. And it comes to light, he never was an instigator against the U.S. I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of these. Our country is just!
In the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention.
Parhat never fought against the United States and the government concedes there’s no evidence he ever intended to. He has been held for six years because he is linked to a Chinese separatist group that the military says has some ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. And it comes to light, he never was an instigator against the U.S.
I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of these.

]]> By: matt http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-2111 matt Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:48:14 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-2111 Hey Kevin, Way to take my comments out of context. I am over the election, but the FACT is that it was stolen. This was just a point. And I said our actions and policies contributed to 9/11. I did not say we deserved it. So do you think they just did it for no reason? People who are upset about both the war and Darfur are upset because of human rights violations. They occur in Darfur, they occurred under Saddam, and they continued to occcur under U.S. occupation. How hard is that to understand, and how does that bother you? And yes, the first line was "former terrorist suspects, " they key word being suspects, meaning they were suspected, meaning it is not sure or positive. If so wouldn't it just say former terrorists? And you say one shouldn't be able to hold someone accountable because one is biased against them. Everyone should be held accountable for everything they do, especially a public figure in the public arena. One should praise another for good work, but what is wrong with criticizing someone when they do wrong? People are biased because they feel someone, in this case Bush, has done a horrible job. 75% of Americans or more feel Bush has done/is doing a bad job. Many people had no bias against Bush when he entered office. Shoot, he won the election, but it is obvious that he has done a bad job, or at least that there is the perception he has done a bad job by 3 out of 4 Americans. And although Saddam may have had ties to terrorists, he had no ties with the terrorists that we are currently hunting. Saddam and these terrorists were diametrically opposed to each other, with completely different idealogies. Saddam only moved idealogically towards a more religious tone when confronted by the Iranians and the U.S. Hey Kevin, Way to take my comments out of context. I am over the election, but the FACT is that it was stolen. This was just a point. And I said our actions and policies contributed to 9/11. I did not say we deserved it. So do you think they just did it for no reason? People who are upset about both the war and Darfur are upset because of human rights violations. They occur in Darfur, they occurred under Saddam, and they continued to occcur under U.S. occupation. How hard is that to understand, and how does that bother you? And yes, the first line was “former terrorist suspects, ” they key word being suspects, meaning they were suspected, meaning it is not sure or positive. If so wouldn’t it just say former terrorists? And you say one shouldn’t be able to hold someone accountable because one is biased against them. Everyone should be held accountable for everything they do, especially a public figure in the public arena. One should praise another for good work, but what is wrong with criticizing someone when they do wrong? People are biased because they feel someone, in this case Bush, has done a horrible job. 75% of Americans or more feel Bush has done/is doing a bad job. Many people had no bias against Bush when he entered office. Shoot, he won the election, but it is obvious that he has done a bad job, or at least that there is the perception he has done a bad job by 3 out of 4 Americans. And although Saddam may have had ties to terrorists, he had no ties with the terrorists that we are currently hunting. Saddam and these terrorists were diametrically opposed to each other, with completely different idealogies. Saddam only moved idealogically towards a more religious tone when confronted by the Iranians and the U.S.

]]> By: matt http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-13119 matt Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:48:00 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-13119 Hey Kevin, Way to take my comments out of context. I am over the election, but the FACT is that it was stolen. This was just a point. And I said our actions and policies contributed to 9/11. I did not say we deserved it. So do you think they just did it for no reason? People who are upset about both the war and Darfur are upset because of human rights violations. They occur in Darfur, they occurred under Saddam, and they continued to occcur under U.S. occupation. How hard is that to understand, and how does that bother you? And yes, the first line was "former terrorist suspects, " they key word being suspects, meaning they were suspected, meaning it is not sure or positive. If so wouldn't it just say former terrorists? And you say one shouldn't be able to hold someone accountable because one is biased against them. Everyone should be held accountable for everything they do, especially a public figure in the public arena. One should praise another for good work, but what is wrong with criticizing someone when they do wrong? People are biased because they feel someone, in this case Bush, has done a horrible job. 75% of Americans or more feel Bush has done/is doing a bad job. Many people had no bias against Bush when he entered office. Shoot, he won the election, but it is obvious that he has done a bad job, or at least that there is the perception he has done a bad job by 3 out of 4 Americans. And although Saddam may have had ties to terrorists, he had no ties with the terrorists that we are currently hunting. Saddam and these terrorists were diametrically opposed to each other, with completely different idealogies. Saddam only moved idealogically towards a more religious tone when confronted by the Iranians and the U.S. Hey Kevin, Way to take my comments out of context. I am over the election, but the FACT is that it was stolen. This was just a point. And I said our actions and policies contributed to 9/11. I did not say we deserved it. So do you think they just did it for no reason? People who are upset about both the war and Darfur are upset because of human rights violations. They occur in Darfur, they occurred under Saddam, and they continued to occcur under U.S. occupation. How hard is that to understand, and how does that bother you? And yes, the first line was “former terrorist suspects, ” they key word being suspects, meaning they were suspected, meaning it is not sure or positive. If so wouldn’t it just say former terrorists? And you say one shouldn’t be able to hold someone accountable because one is biased against them. Everyone should be held accountable for everything they do, especially a public figure in the public arena. One should praise another for good work, but what is wrong with criticizing someone when they do wrong? People are biased because they feel someone, in this case Bush, has done a horrible job. 75% of Americans or more feel Bush has done/is doing a bad job. Many people had no bias against Bush when he entered office. Shoot, he won the election, but it is obvious that he has done a bad job, or at least that there is the perception he has done a bad job by 3 out of 4 Americans. And although Saddam may have had ties to terrorists, he had no ties with the terrorists that we are currently hunting. Saddam and these terrorists were diametrically opposed to each other, with completely different idealogies. Saddam only moved idealogically towards a more religious tone when confronted by the Iranians and the U.S.

]]> By: Ari Herzog http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-2110 Ari Herzog Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:16:55 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-2110 Even worse than Geneva Convention breaches, consider that the United States is the only country in the world that has no intention of ratifying the <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php" rel="nofollow">Kyoto Protocol</a>. Couldn't the federal government have at least taken the moral road of Afghanistan, Chad, Zimbabwe, and other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories#No_position_expressed_yet" rel="nofollow">nations that have not expressed an opinion</a> on ratification? Why flat out refuse to sign? Even Kazakhstan signed it. Even worse than Geneva Convention breaches, consider that the United States is the only country in the world that has no intention of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Couldn’t the federal government have at least taken the moral road of Afghanistan, Chad, Zimbabwe, and other nations that have not expressed an opinion on ratification? Why flat out refuse to sign? Even Kazakhstan signed it.

]]> By: Ari Herzog http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/06/proud-to-be-an-american/#comment-13118 Ari Herzog Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:16:00 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/?p=441#comment-13118 Even worse than Geneva Convention breaches, consider that the United States is the only country in the world that has no intention of ratifying the <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php" rel="nofollow">Kyoto Protocol</a>. Couldn't the federal government have at least taken the moral road of Afghanistan, Chad, Zimbabwe, and other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories#No_position_expressed_yet" rel="nofollow">nations that have not expressed an opinion</a> on ratification? Why flat out refuse to sign? Even Kazakhstan signed it. Even worse than Geneva Convention breaches, consider that the United States is the only country in the world that has no intention of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Couldn’t the federal government have at least taken the moral road of Afghanistan, Chad, Zimbabwe, and other nations that have not expressed an opinion on ratification? Why flat out refuse to sign? Even Kazakhstan signed it.

]]>