What are we supposed to do? Play world police with sovereign nations?

When it comes to genocide, yes! The US is a signatory to the UN Convention on Genocide. It's leading article 1 reads: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
The US and all other signatories to this convention are obligated to act prevent acts of genocide.

What about the innocents the US has murdered in cold blood during the war in Iraq?

I thought we were talking about Afghanistan. Though for argument sake, removing Saddam has still saved more lives than the incompetently mismanaged occupation has cost.

Should that be considered an expected casualty during some elusive quest for peace?
You think war can be fought without spilling innocent blood? The question is what costs more innocent lives, American 'peace' with Saddam while he remains in power, or American war to remove him. The benefit of hindsight already answered that question before the invasion began.

You have the power of hindsight that allows you the self-assured ability to judge historic military scrimmages that lead to the winner's version of 'peace'.
I declared the inaction in Rwanda to be intolerable, no hindsight was needed for that observation. All external powers saw the genocide coming, and had their troops on the ground removing their citizens from the country within hours of the violence breaking out, and had their troops and civilians safely away never to return immediately after. The UN force on the ground knew the genocide was happening too, they used that knowledge to withdraw all but 400 peace keepers from the region as well. The blood on Clinton's hands for failing to stop the genocide has NOTHING to do with hindsight and everything to do with the decision to mind his own business and choosing 'peace' over war.

>> ^entr0py:
Sure "assassination" is illegal under US and international law. But "extra judicial targeted killing" is different entirely. Just like what Israel did in Dubai; totally kosher. I admit sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference between assassination and extra judicial targeted killing. But I find it's a good rule of thumb to ask if they're Muslim. As everyone knows, Muslims can't be assassinated.


I feel where you are coming from. When considering assassination, though, I usually consider that a combatant covertly killing a non-combatant. If a soldier kills a soldier, that isn't what I would consider an assassination. Likewise, if some group of deep-covert military people went in and killed a bunch of war targets in the thick of the night, I wouldn't consider that assassination either.

I will digress as I know nothing of what Israel did in Dubai, just offering further conversation

Sure "assassination" is illegal under US and international law. But "extra judicial targeted killing" is different entirely. Just like what Israel did in Dubai; totally kosher. I admit sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference between assassination and extra judicial targeted killing. But I find it's a good rule of thumb to ask if they're Muslim. As everyone knows, Muslims can't be assassinated.

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do. I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

Run that buy me again? Hang on, one more time I didn't quiet believe my eyes! I, wait I can't say anything because of the new caps on freedom of expression. Oh wait, this website is now gone because of the new international laws that stop us from free speech. Guess what Longde, your speech on this website would be capped just as everyone else would be.

Welcome to the world were no one can speak without being beheaded because "someone might get offended." Hang on, while we're at it lets go ahead and hang:

• George Carlin Posthumously


• Howard Zinn Posthumously


• Noam Chomsky


• Theo van Gogh (film director)- Oh wait, they got him already.


• Frank Zappa


• Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Wait, here is a whole list you can start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_speech_activists.

Hell while we are being politically correct lets go ahead and enact a law that will make mandatory executions for all independent investigative journalists. I mean while we are going all out here, why don't we go ahead and make it a crime to be anything independent.

I think someone said this before me, "There can be no freedom without free speech."Free Press. You know what they say? If you don't like it don't read it! If you don't like it don't watch it! If you don't like it don't eat it! If you don't like it go back to your protective bubble!

Hypberbole aside where I come from it is an inalienable right to speak your mind even if it offends someone. It is that offended persons right to think you are a douche bag. But as soon as there is violence both parties are in the wrong. Justice is properly blind but in most cases she is not stupid; she doth not tread across that line to become a tyrant.

Quotes from one John Stuart Mill speaking on the Harm Principle.

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

John Stuart Mill quote on the Harm Principle, again:

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[28]

What do these quotes mean to you and I? Well they mean simply; that a person can speak their mind so long as the argument presented is valid even if it is embarrassingly immoral. That means, as it is already a statute the US, that hate crime is not free speech. But the prosecuting party has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had the intention of causing harm with said speech. Then we enter the realm of Libel and Slander. A person has to proven knowingly lieing about someone in order to be charged with Libel or Slander.

I have for you, sir or mam a quote from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, this quote is often confused with Samuel Johnson's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hell is paved with good intentions." Even earlier than that, it's been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

>> ^Simple_Man:
I'd love to see a video or documentary on stunt horses. How people get them to do half the things they do, without hurting the horses, is beyond my understanding.



I promise you that at least 2 horses were killed during the making of this.You can tell how they tie rope to there front feet to get them to flip like that just watch from the 1 min mark on and watch the horses front legs you can see the ropes.(breaking legs and necks like they were using another prop car)
I also remember reading somewhere that sometime before the making of braveheart there were international laws put into place to make film makers stop using real horses to do stunts, if they want to do a horse flip scene the have to use a dummy horse.

Im no horse activist i grew up on a horse farm and i HATE horses, but i dont hate them enof to watch them get abused like this.

Kinda reminds me of the old "Nelson Mandala freedom fighter or terrorist" chestnut.

Except replacing substituting white men for Japanese(works) and black Africans for whales(fail)...

The Japanese are skirting international law to harvest animals, which is bad. The Sea Shepherd, through antics like this and others, is actively endangering human lives. The endanger not only their own lives and anyone sent to rescue them, but those of the other ships around them that they choose to attack. That is much, much worse and the only way to cut it any different is to value human and other animal life equally. This shows in who does and does not support these loons.

Transcript:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

You could argue that Cenk Uygur hasn't argued his point in the most eloquent way, but it's much harder to argue with his general idea: that Palin lacks the knowledge to be president. She speaks in talking points, and even these she manages to mangle. Not to mention that some of her statements are mind-boggling:

"I belive that the Jewish settlements should be able to be expanded upon...I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

These settlements are on Palestinian land, seized by Israel during the 1967 war. That means that these settlements are being built on occupied territory, something the Geneva Convention prohibits and that international law and the United Nations have recognised as illegal.

But unlike Cenk, I'm not afraid of her. I find this all rather amusing.

As Stormsinger said, and the Lou Dobbs show decided not to say, for a resolution to be binding on a country then that country has to agree on it. The misleading perception this show gave is that it is an international law overriding the laws of a nation state. Bad reporting. And Hitchens went off the subject of the law completely. Anyway. I guess the people on the show got a chance to speak of the agendas they had on their mind at the time.

Prager is a proponent of American exceptionalism, the view that the moral superiority of American values sometimes justifies unilateral action on the world stage, and that the U.S. should not always be constrained by international law or the United Nations in pursuit of its goals.

He has been criticized for turning down the volume on callers with whom he disagrees, making it appear as if they have hung up or are just being silent.

(source)

Prager is another "do as I say, not as I do" moral relativist who gets a hardon trying to shove his antavistic viewpoints down every body's throats.

ya beat me to it RASCH!
the debate if torture is a political right or wrong,or if its its even justified
is IRRELEVANT.
let me say that again for those who got their intellect from a cracker jack box.
the debate on whether torture is righteous,or a political ideology is IRRELEVANT.
RASCH is correct.according to article 3 of the geneva convention,and CIA,NSA and fbi legal guidelines,waterboarding is considered TORTURE,therefore it is against the LAW.not just international law,but national.
dont like the law?then CHANGE it.
but bybee,addington and woo did not do that did they?
they created retro-active legislation that RETROACTIVELY gave immunity to those who were the architects of the iraq war.
if the bush administration was so righteous in the iraq war and its prosecution,why would they have senior white house legal counsel create laws to grant immunity..retroactively?
answer=because the prosecution of the "war on terror" was an illegal war,using illegal "interrogation techniques".
in the aftermath of world war 2,three japanese interrogators were executed.
their crime?...waterboarding.
which court prosecuted these japanese interrogators?....american.
there IS NO ARGUMENT....waterboarding is against the LAW..period.
so for those who feel they can turn this into a political diatribe are just being weak-minded,or even worse...tools for an establishment who left their ideologies a long time ago.
while bansheex may be corrct that in the past it was the democracts who were the chickenhawks,it is BESIDE THE POINT,and has no relevance to the current argument.
and QM's argument is just one big red herring,and avoids the real point in order to push his "i hate libs" polemic.
this IS NOT A POLITICAL TALKING POINT.this is about the honor of the USA and how we,as a nation,are all equal UNDER THE LAW.
jesse ventura put it perfectly,and i agree,i dont care if it was a repub,or a dem that knew about this,and either by action OR inaction allowed this perversion to go on.ALL of them should be held accountable.
this new development with the additional abu ghraib pictures NOT being revealed has me fuming.it smacks of political hubris.my guess is that some
prominent politicians will be exposed as having known about these abuses and let it slide for political expediency.i find this VERY distasteful.
no-one should be above the law.
and waterboarding is torture,it was developed for the sole purpose of producing a "false confession" and did nothing to gather or obtain pertinent information,but did a great job in making our country seem the hypocrite and made or soldiers far less safe.
and QM..please read up on the legalities please.the "national flag" defense was a construct by the bybee/addington crew to do exactly what you did here..
defend torture,and was corrected in 2006.that argument can no longer be used.
somebody else mentioned "citizen rights"..yeah..ok...
go check out MCA of 2006,patriot act 1& 2,victory act 1& 2.
all they have to do is deem you an "enemy combatant" and your whisked away to "secret rendition" club med.there was a post here a few weeks ago about a 16 yr old who was brought in under the patriot act,he lost all rights as a citizen.no habeas corpus,no rights of redress,the state does not have to produce evidence under the vague banner of "national security".
this whole things stinks to high heaven,reeking of political malfeasance and abuse.the worst thing is how it indirectly puts our soldiers in a much worse situation than before.and for what?...nothing,absolutely nothing.
i didnt serve my country to watch a bunch of gray haired chicken hawk pussies,who didnt have the balls to sign up when called, but now are all trash talking tough guys,who put MY kids in danger.
bunch of panty-waist,pussy fags.
im done...there is no argument.
against the law..period.
either change the law,or shut the fuck up.
better yet,put your money where your mouth is,and go sign up for the army.
lets see you trash talk then.
fucking pussies.
/rant OFF
thanks for tuning in to:enoch's cathartic rant.

>> ^quantumushroom:
How does Ventura--who really should know better--equate scum terrorists who are not soldiers and therefore have no rights or legal protections (except ones fabricated by the American Criminal Liars Union) with legitimate soldiers fighting under a nation's flag?
U.S. citizens, who have actual rights and protections under the law, cannot legally be waterboarded, not even a McVeigh. So that answers that.

That doesn't answer that at all. As well as being forbidden by US law, torture of POWs and civilians is forbidden by the third and fourth Geneva Conventions. The US have ratified these conventions and they must therefore be followed by the US government. In plain English this means that the US are bound not just by their own laws, but also by international law when it comes to treatment of POWs. As is the rest of the world.

The Bush administration tried to classify the captured terrorists as "unlawful combatants", ie. not POWs and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Another example of renaming someone/something to justify it. Of course this was just plain bullshit, in lack of a better word. I quote the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which sets a clear precedent:

"Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."

Therefore, qm, captured terrorists have the same legal protection as US citizens when it comes to torture.

For the most part, I follow and agree with what Obama is saying, in that this has to be dealt with carefully and especially in a bipartisan fashion. However, I am not as sure I agree regarding where the guilt fully lies.

Guilt at the top of the chain of command, those giving the orders, is of no debate to me. Those people need to be punished (according to Rule of Law) as they gave criminal orders to those that performed the torture. On a side note, I hate the use of the words "enhanced interrogation"... fucking call it what it is.

At the same time, "I just following orders", the Nuremberg Defense, has been used many times in modern history as an excuse for doing the inexcusable. There is a reason why international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, exist. This is specifially why the Nuremberg Principle IV was written.

There are rules, even in war. This is a moral issue that deserves greater international public debate, and I think Obama may have spoken too early, essentially giving pardons to those on the frontlines, those that performed the actual torture.

The sad thing, is that if it was a weaker country (in other words, one that could not defend it's sovereignty, not a superpower) that performed these acts the debate would be alot shorter, and those involved could expect to be punished for their actions. This will not be the first time the US government says "screw you" to international law and decide to prosecute/pardon these people under their own system, which will be much more gentle.

That is a perpetual problem with international law and world courts... ultimately a country that exercises it's sovereignty to the degree of the US (China and Russia are included in this) can do whatever they want with little consequences in the short term, if ever. They have no obligation to international law or the world courts because they can do whatever they want. The illegal war in Iraq is a perfect example of this sort of violation. A justice system with no real accountability or support is in the end a failure.

In the end, I will be happy enough if the big players, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield answered for their crimes (not just related to torture, but going into Iraq, illegal wire tapping... the works). I just think it is too early to be dishing out pardons to anyone.

"If it is so clear, please tell me which part of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act clearly blocks the entry of George W. Bush?"

Lets look at the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

First and very important is section 33 where it states:

33. The facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur.

George Bush doesn't fall under section 34 like Galloway did, he falls under section 35 which states:

35. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for

(a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;

Bush is not exempt by the next paragraph (b) and subsequent subsection (2) of this section because he is no longer an elected senior official.

The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act states in section 6:

OFFENCES OUTSIDE CANADA

Genocide, etc., committed outside Canada

6. (1) Every person who, either before or after the coming into force of this section, commits outside Canada

(a) genocide,
(b) a crime against humanity, or
(c) a war crime,

Definitions follow further in the act:

3) The definitions in this subsection apply in this section.
"crime against humanity"
«crime contre l’humanité »

"crime against humanity" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

"war crime"
«crime de guerre »

"war crime" means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using the incendiary agent, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.


White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon.

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."

In response, the IDF said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."

Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/red-cross-israels-use-white-phosphorus-not-illegal