Memo to Army Chief of Staff

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:14pm

The Kernel wrote:How about this part?

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

You don't think threatening someone with a gun is intimidation?

That is quoting 1 legal interpratation of it. The letter of the law says nothing about it.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:16pm

The Kernel wrote:Awww, poor baby. Is this entirely irrelevent rant the best you can do? As for the right not to be scared, take a look at my preceding quote from the Geneva Convention dickfuck.

except you didn't quote the Geneva convention, you quoted Yale's interpratation of it. The Convention itself, as quoted by Chadrok, says nothing.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:16pm

Ender wrote:
The Kernel wrote:How about this part?

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

You don't think threatening someone with a gun is intimidation?
That is quoting 1 legal interpratation of it. The letter of the law says nothing about it.

Since the legal interpretation is all that really matters, I'd say I'm right unless you can provide a legal interpretation that says otherwise.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 08:17pm

The Kernel wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
The Kernel wrote: So the ends justify the means in your world. Fine, but that isn't a justification dingus, it is just something that people like to use to justify atrocious acts.
It's so 'atrocious' to scare a man. You fucking disgust me. Show me where a man is granted the right not to be scared. Show me, you irrelevent little drone.

The needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few; those that scream 'the ends don't justify the means' don't understand that we do not live in the land of lollipops and happy endings. Sometimes some must be sacrificed in order for a larger group to continue. But in the obviously hemoragged brains of people like you, no sacrifice can be made of the few. I am damn glad people like you aren't in power. You'd destroy civilization.
Awww, poor baby. Is this entirely irrelevent rant the best you can do? As for the right not to be scared, take a look at my preceding quote from the Geneva Convention dickfuck.

Awww, you poor little drone, is the best you can do more naivete and trying to belittle me? Try using logic, you worthless cumstain.

I'll put it in simpler terms for your obviously simple mind. Since you're so happy to proclaim yourself an American, I'll even use an analogy that your sad excuse for public education would have let you had contact with.

Two hundred and some years ago, a bunch of people decided that the ends did justify the means, suspending the civil rights of people across the 13 colonies because it was the means to improve the lot of hte many. You might have heard of it. It's the 'Revolutionary War' in your country.

You and your ilk love pithy sayings, but when it comes down to it, your philosophy runs in contrary to everything logical, even the forces of evolution itself.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:17pm

Ender wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Awww, poor baby. Is this entirely irrelevent rant the best you can do? As for the right not to be scared, take a look at my preceding quote from the Geneva Convention dickfuck.
except you didn't quote the Geneva convention, you quoted Yale's interpratation of it. The Convention itself, as quoted by Chadrok, says nothing.

Thanks for the correction, but if there is precedent behind the intimidation factor (which makes perfect sense btw) then I am still right.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:18pm

Ender wrote:That is quoting 1 legal interpratation of it. The letter of the law says nothing about it.

Umm, hello? That's a direct quote of Article 13.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:18pm

The Kernel wrote:
Ender wrote:
The Kernel wrote:How about this part?

You don't think threatening someone with a gun is intimidation?
That is quoting 1 legal interpratation of it. The letter of the law says nothing about it.
Since the legal interpretation is all that really matters,

Nope, you said it violated wht the convention says, and it doesn't because the convention doesn't say a word about it.

I'd say I'm right unless you can provide a legal interpretation that says otherwise.

You go right on thinking that, those of us who live on earth will continue to point and laugh at you.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:19pm

SirNitram wrote: Awww, you poor little drone, is the best you can do more naivete and trying to belittle me? Try using logic, you worthless cumstain.

I'll put it in simpler terms for your obviously simple mind. Since you're so happy to proclaim yourself an American, I'll even use an analogy that your sad excuse for public education would have let you had contact with.

Two hundred and some years ago, a bunch of people decided that the ends did justify the means, suspending the civil rights of people across the 13 colonies because it was the means to improve the lot of hte many. You might have heard of it. It's the 'Revolutionary War' in your country.

You and your ilk love pithy sayings, but when it comes down to it, your philosophy runs in contrary to everything logical, even the forces of evolution itself.

Are you trying to argue that there was no moral justification for the Revolutionary War? LMFAO, that's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Here's a hint: taxation without representation.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:19pm

Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subject to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind, which are not justified by the medical, dental, or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:20pm

Vympel wrote:
Ender wrote:That is quoting 1 legal interpratation of it. The letter of the law says nothing about it.
Umm, hello? That's a direct quote of Article 13.

Umm, hello? thats a direct quote of Yale's interpration of Article 13. Chadrok already posted what the artical says.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:20pm

Great Scott, Vympel is right...

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 08:20pm

The Kernel wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Awww, you poor little drone, is the best you can do more naivete and trying to belittle me? Try using logic, you worthless cumstain.

I'll put it in simpler terms for your obviously simple mind. Since you're so happy to proclaim yourself an American, I'll even use an analogy that your sad excuse for public education would have let you had contact with.

Two hundred and some years ago, a bunch of people decided that the ends did justify the means, suspending the civil rights of people across the 13 colonies because it was the means to improve the lot of hte many. You might have heard of it. It's the 'Revolutionary War' in your country.

You and your ilk love pithy sayings, but when it comes down to it, your philosophy runs in contrary to everything logical, even the forces of evolution itself.
Are you trying to argue that there was no moral justification for the Revolutionary War? LMFAO, that's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Here's a hint: taxation without representation.

No, you irrelevent drone. I'm showing your 'morality' is bunk and worthless. I realize since you see everything with your 'individuals before the majority!!111' blinders on, this might not sink into your thick skull.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-11-05 08:21pm

The Kernel wrote:How about this part?

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

You don't think threatening someone with a gun is intimidation?

POW also have duties derived from the laws of war, the regulations of the Detaining Power and military discipline. POWs are subject to the laws and orders of the enemy army, they can be tried and punished for the same infractions and with the sanctions for which members of the enemy army can be tried and punished. In case they commit a non-military crime they are subject to the laws and courts of the Detaining Power

I ORDER you to tell me where the Ambush is!

"Go fuck yourself"

(In the U.s. Army, you disobey a direct order in combat, you can be shot. likewise for running away during combat)

*BANG BANG*

I can point this at you and do that, since you are subject to our rules and the orders of officers. Now, I repeat, WHERE IS THE AMBUSH?!

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:22pm

SirNitram wrote:
No, you irrelevent drone. I'm showing your 'morality' is bunk and worthless. I realize since you see everything with your 'individuals before the majority!!111' blinders on, this might not sink into your thick skull.

Actually, quite the opposite. I do indeed believe in the greater good to a certain extent, but only within the confines of strictly defined civil liberties. Apparently you don't see the logic behind setting limits.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:22pm

The Kernel wrote:Great Scott, Vympel is right...

Great Scott, Vympel didn't note that its an interpration of the convention, not the convention itself. this things in paragraphs, the one they have hung at my work right beside the UCMJ is in outline from like what Chadrok posted

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 08:22pm

The Kernel wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
No, you irrelevent drone. I'm showing your 'morality' is bunk and worthless. I realize since you see everything with your 'individuals before the majority!!111' blinders on, this might not sink into your thick skull.
Actually, quite the opposite. I do indeed believe in the greater good to a certain extent, but only within the confines of strictly defined civil liberties. Apparently you don't see the logic behind setting limits.

Ah, so your blinders don't have 'staying alive' as civil liberties? You are a moron.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-05 08:23pm

All this legalese semantics come down to nothing. A quick observation of the scenario will yield the salient facts. The officer did nothing more than intimidate a prisoner of war. Let us dwell upon this for a moment; he scared a man who was committed to bringing about his death, and in the process saved many lives, while inflicting no harm upon the prisoner.

So if we now consider the right to not be scared a sacred right, not to be trodden upon under any circumstance, then the FBI can no longer throw people in stark rooms with one light, the police can now longer point guns at people, prison wardens can no longer throw unruly inmates in solitary. There is no such thing as the right to be perfectly comfortable. The lieutenant deserves thanks, not prosecution.

Assuming, of course, that this event actually took place. Where did Weisman get his information?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:23pm

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Another DIRECT quote.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:25pm

Ender wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Great Scott, Vympel is right...
Great Scott, Vympel didn't note that its an interpration of the convention, not the convention itself. this things in paragraphs, the one they have hung at my work right beside the UCMJ is in outline from like what Chadrok posted

No, for the last fucking time THAT IS WHAT THE CONVENTION SAYS.

For fuck's sake READ THE GODDAMN CONVENTION. Annoying.

I think the UN website knows what the fuck it's on about, THANK YOU

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-05 08:26pm

Vympel wrote:
Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Another DIRECT quote.

From the same fucking source. that is not the Convention itself, it is an interpration of it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:26pm

Ender wrote:From the same fucking source. that is not the Convention itself, it is an interpration of it.

Stop talking out of your arse, THOSE ARE THE TERMS OF THE CONVENTION, PERIOD, jesus christ, what the fuck do you think the convention says?!

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-05 08:27pm

Just in case any thickheads STILL don't get it

Fucking ...

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:29pm

SirNitram wrote: Ah, so your blinders don't have 'staying alive' as civil liberties? You are a moron.

Funny you should mention that. Bush used self-defense as his excuse for invading Iraq after he realized there were no WMD there. I believe the entire UN got in a good laugh that day.

You can only take the self-defense excuse so far. The officer knew of no immediate threat to himself, nor his men. Just because he got one isn't an excuse for violating the Geneva Convention. Let me give you another example. If police detectives nab a suspect that they suspect has kidnapped someone and that they will die if they can't find out their location, that doesn't give them the right to violate the suspects civil liberties.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-05 08:31pm

Vympel wrote:Just in case any thickheads STILL don't get it

Fucking ...

LOL, I really shouldn't take people at their words so much.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 08:32pm

The Kernel wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Ah, so your blinders don't have 'staying alive' as civil liberties? You are a moron.
Funny you should mention that. Bush used self-defense as his excuse for invading Iraq after he realized there were no WMD there. I believe the entire UN got in a good laugh that day.

Red Herring. There are no weapons there, nor was there ever a chance these mythical weapons could hit the US. If you are resorting this sort of bullshit in a desperate attempt to shore up your argument, please fuck off.

You can only take the self-defense excuse so far. The officer knew of no immediate threat to himself, nor his men. Just because he got one isn't an excuse for violating the Geneva Convention. Let me give you another example. If police detectives nab a suspect that they suspect has kidnapped someone and that they will die if they can't find out their location, that doesn't give them the right to violate the suspects civil liberties.

I am not referring to the legalities, you irrelevent turd. I am arguing entirely morally. That you don't get that one man's right to be in comfort in his interrogation is not more important than several other individuals rights to continue being alive doesn't make this any different.