11.18.2007

Reply to Sonia

Wow, OK, there's a lot to be done here...please read the links, when you have the time.

Yes, Bush waving a red flag with a hammer and sickle would definitely make him a villain in my book...

Even some of the most staunch opposers of communism Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, authors of The Black Book of Communism disagree with your opinion that the rallying symbols, and indeed ideologies and actions of communists even compare to that of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Thats saying something.


If Mother Teresa and Gandhi were waving a flag with swastica in Israel, they would be seen as villains there as well...

Grouping the likes of Bush in with people like Mother Teresa and Gandhi is not only laughable, but a huge insult to Mother Teresa and Gandhi.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for American citizens to fight slavery.

This is a half-truth.
Lincoln did suspend Habeas Corpus in 1861, to only a handful of states, then nationally in 1862. In 18866 Congress ruled that this act was unconstitutional and illegal.

Contrary to popular misconception, neither the Civil War nor the suspension of Habeas Corpus had anything to do with ending slavery. His suspension of Habeas Corpus was aimed at suppressing peace movements, and activists who tried to impede enlistment. From Lincolns own pen:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388."


Bush never did.

Uh, yes he did. In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Bush suspended Habeas Corpus.

President Bush suspended writs of habeas corpus through his support and signing into law of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The bill grants the President of the United States almost unlimited authority in establishing and conducting military commissions to try persons held by the U.S., and considered to be "unlawful enemy combatants" in the Global War on Terrorism. In addition, the Act suspends the right of "unlawful enemy combatants" to present, or to have presented in their behalf, writs of habeas corpus.[1]



Geneva convention applies only between countries that recognize each other (Taliban and Al Qaeda don't recognize Geneva convention when they capture American soldiers neither).

WRONG. In the Geneva Convention it states:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."


It continues to state:

"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."


And goes on to say (just in case the combatant may not be protected):

"When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict."


Which, even if some of the detainees fall into this category, Bush has still not complied with Geneva Convention Laws.

And further states:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."


The Geneva Convention goes on and on and on...and Bush has violated so many of the laws its beyond counting or quoting.

One more link about Geneva Convention violations

I never heard Bush "praising and supporting" Pakistan.
Then you haven't been listening. Frederick has listed some good quotes, to add to that I'll add:

"CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush stepped up praise of Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf Saturday, hailing "positive steps" the general took by promising to lift emergency rule, resign as army chief and hold elections.

"and that wouldn't have happened without President Musharraf honoring his word."

"Benazir Bhutto fully understands the dangers of al-Qaida. By far the vast majority of people in Pakistan want to live in a free and peaceful society, and they understand the dangers of al-Qaida. ... I believe we will continue to have good collaboration with the leadership in Pakistan."

Earlier today, President Bush cited Pakistan's help in working together "to stop the world's most dangerous men from getting their hands on the world's most dangerous weapons,"

"Working with Great Britain and Pakistan and other nations, the United States shut down the world's most dangerous nuclear trading cartel, the AQ Khan network,"

The president also said that "we're working with friends and allies to deny the terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world."

Pakistan gained the status of Most Favored Nation from the United States following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979."


And the list goes on and on...

Nobody in history has ever started a war on "true" pretenses.

Defend that statement.

What the hell is "posse comitatus act" ?

Ah, I see why you are confused about the issue of martial law, if you don't know what the Posse Comitatus Actis. The short of it is this: it was passed in 1878, preventing the use of US military force inside the borders of the US. Overturning this act allows the President to go forward, should he choose to, with enforcing Martial law using both the US military, and military contracted private companies like Blackwater.


Bush never declared martial law.

I guess its a good thing that I said "extending the ability to enforce martial law", and not "declared martial law". I did choose those specific words for the very reason of their inherent meaning.

Here are some links about Martial Law in the US:

John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006 (section 1042)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (HR 1585)

Whitehouse.gov
Whitehouse.gov
Whitehouse.gov
Military Commissions Act
Independant Media repost
A blog report

He never overturned any constitutional rights neither.

Wrong again. Law discussion on Patriot Act

Among many others that I have listed on my personal blog here.

Really Sonia, you should check your opinions against facts before you post them, if you plan to continue to posture your opinions as facts.

7 comments:

Frederick said...

It's useless, I tried. It's like trying to get Hillary Clinton to remember the whole NAFTA debate.

sonia said...

It's not useless. I am very impressed with your erudition, Anok.

In fact, I will have to concede defeat on some points:

1. Habeas corpus. You're right. All I can say is that FDR's detention of Japanese-Americans was far worse. Lincoln's measures were far worse. And Adams' Alien and Sedition Act was far worse.

So your behavior in wartime is improving, but you are still quite bad.

2. posse comitatus act. You're right.

3. extending the ability to enforce martial law. You're right.

Points I'm still contesting:

Even some of the most staunch opposers of communism (...) disagree with your opinion that (...) actions of communists even compare to that of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

I don't agree Communist actions compare to Hitler's actions. I think Communist actions were far, far worse.

Contrary to popular misconception, neither the Civil War nor the suspension of Habeas Corpus had anything to do with ending slavery.

It was all about slavery. But ending slavery wasn't a popular issue. So Lincoln's propaganda machine was talking about "preserving the Union". But we all know that the crux of the matter was slavery. It was the big elephant in the room nobody was talking about.

Geneva Convention: I still claim that Taliban and Al Qaeda are not "powers" entitled to Geneva protection. If they are, then Hannibal Lecter deserves a POW status as well.

Nobody in history has ever started a war on "true" pretenses. Defend that statement.

I can't prove a negative. Only you can prove me wrong by finding an example of a agressor who invaded another country under "true" pretenses.

Renegade Eye said...

I like your technique.

At times I want to close my blog, when dealing with strawman and ad hominem nonsense. Your comment style is what makes it worth it.

You live up to your own hype.

Anon-Paranoid said...

anok...
Didn't Hitler invade Poland based on lies he told the German people? I thought I had read he told them that Poland was going to attack Germany and that's why he invaded Poland.

To protect them from a Polish Invasion.

God Bless.

enigma4ever said...

Sorry you have been trying to defend and explain....the person that is battling with you has visited many blogs....Anok- you have your facts and the Truth well in hand...just like most americans at this point...but thank you for always doing your part to educate and spread the truth...you are a powerful intelligent blogger...and for that we are always proud and grateful.....

Anok said...

Frederick, I like the challenge!

Ren, I'm flattered! I had no Idea there was any hype about my blog at all LOL.

Anon, I'm not sure what the exact lies were that Hitler told to justify moving into Poland, but I'm sure that "eminent threat" wouldn't be too outlandish of a reason.

Enigma - on the contrary! I think that open discourse, debate and even constructive arguing is the key to progress and understanding in this world. Not to mention that defending ones own position is a sure fire to either strengthen the opinion, or be forced to change it in light of new evidence or strong argument.

Thank you for the compliment though! You are also a strong blogger, a hub or epicenter as it were for blogger networking and insight to the world, and quiet conversation.

Anok said...

Sonia, I'm glad we can get down to the good stuff now that the semantical stuff is out of the way! Even if my response is a tad bit late. (your quotes are in italics)

Habeas corpus. You're right. All I can say is that FDR's detention of Japanese-Americans was far worse. Lincoln's measures were far worse. And Adams' Alien and Sedition Act was far worse.

I can say with total honesty that when I found out about the Japenese detention camps I was appalled. It was like the American Dream just turned into a Freddy Krueger nightmare in my opinion. Lincoln's actions were eerily similar to current day actions - the quieting of American voices of dissent etc, and teh Sedition act is still on the books, and can still be used against us at any time. I don't know that these things are worse, in my opinion, but rather just proof that America has been living in delusions for quite some time.

I don't agree Communist actions compare to Hitler's actions. I think Communist actions were far, far worse.

We will have to agree to disagree on some things ;)

It was all about slavery. But ending slavery wasn't a popular issue. So Lincoln's propaganda machine was talking about "preserving the Union".

Actually it was about the succession of the South from the States. This loss of unity meant huge financial losses for the North . While anti slavery sentiments in the North may have helped fuel the South's actions prior to the war - it was not the cause of the war at all. It was money, pure and simple. In fact, abolishing slavery didn't even come into play until the army realized that slaves made for good cannon fodder, and promised freedom to any who served for their country. It was also a rallying cry to get gain support for the war in the North.

I still claim that Taliban and Al Qaeda are not "powers" entitled to Geneva protection. If they are, then Hannibal Lecter deserves a POW status as well.

The real debate here is whether or not Taliban or Al Qaida fighters fit the definitions of non-signatories who are protected under the Geneva Convention. There is one section, that outlines insurgent style fighters (or fighters not tied to government or national armies) that the fighters in question do fit into - with one vague discrepancy. The very last requirement to qualify is if the person or group fights according to the "Rules of War". This is a pretty vague distinction, in my opinion. It would depend on who is interpreting the "Rules of War" and who is witnessing to the actions of said fighters. A group of American soldiers or mercenaries may see a group they think are "terrorists" when in reality they are not - simple actions of self defense are then labeled as terrorist, and wham! no protection.

Luckily, the Geneva Convention addresses this issue as well, in two places. First it states that if the Army (such as the US) detains any person or group that is captured during a war, and is unsure of their protection under the Geneva Convention the person or group is to be brought before a world court to determine its status. (Something Bush has failed to do whatsoever).

Then! If the person is protected, they may remain in custody of the capturing country. If they are not protected, they must be moved to a neutral country for detention. (Which Bush has also failed to do)

So regardless of whether these fighters turn out to be protected or not, the US should have NEVER engaged in the detention practices that has been used by this country, whatsoever!

The Geneva Convention also clearly states that torture can never be used by its signatories. Even on prisoners who are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

I'll say it again, because its that important: Torture can never be used by signatories of the Geneva Convention.

I can't prove a negative.

Of course you can! At least, in this case. All you need to do is provide enough of a list (major wars should suffice) of wars and the justifications, and prove that the reasons were all false.