U.N. report: U.S. committed acts 'amounting to torture' at Gitmo

So when you invade a country you can imprison any of it's inhabitants indefinately without charges?
 
flavio said:
So when you invade a country you can imprison any of it's inhabitants indefinately without charges?
Click to expand...
Um ..... yeah. Until you pull out, or sign a treaty requiring you to give them back.
 
Whatever allows for invading a country and imprisoning any of it's inhabitants indefinately without charges.
 
flavio said:
Whatever allows for invading a country and imprisoning any of it's inhabitants indefinately without charges.
Click to expand...

That's called a provision? Last time i checked, it was called "we've got the guns"

People are often taken into custody during a war. Sometimes they're called POWs, sometimes hostages. Sometimes persons-of-interest.
 
Professur said:
That's called a provision? Last time i checked, it was called "we've got the guns"

People are often taken into custody during a war. Sometimes they're called POWs, sometimes hostages. Sometimes persons-of-interest.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, "the usual suspects."
 
Professur said:
That's called a provision? Last time i checked, it was called "we've got the guns"

People are often taken into custody during a war. Sometimes they're called POWs, sometimes hostages. Sometimes persons-of-interest.
Click to expand...
Yeah, still looking for some indication that it's not against international law to invade a country and imprison any of it's inhabitants (civilian or otherwise) indefinately without charges.
 
International law is made by a bunch of small guys with small guns to try and control the big guys with big guns. It usually has as much chance of working as telling a bully you're not afraid of him. He'll usually give you something to be afraid of.
 
Professur said:
International law is made by a bunch of small guys with small guns to try and control the big guys with big guns. It usually has as much chance of working as telling a bully you're not afraid of him. He'll usually give you something to be afraid of.
Click to expand...
Succinct and to the point. Reality's a bitch, ain't it?
 
Professur said:
International law is made by a bunch of small guys with small guns to try and control the big guys with big guns. It usually has as much chance of working as telling a bully you're not afraid of him. He'll usually give you something to be afraid of.
Click to expand...
No it's made by both small and big guys. If the US agrees to International Laws then they need to follow them otherwise there's no reason for other countries to trust us in diplomacy, negotiation, treaties, alliances, trade agreements, etc.
 
flavio said:
No it's made by both small and big guys. If the US agrees to International Laws then they need to follow them otherwise there's no reason for other countries to trust us in diplomacy, negotiation, treaties, alliances, trade agreements, etc.
Click to expand...

Surely you're not that gullible. Three words for you. Soft Wood Lumber.
 
Professur said:
Surely you're not that gullible. Three words for you. Soft Wood Lumber.
Click to expand...
Gullible about what?

chcr said:
Flavio, you think they trust us?????
Click to expand...
Many countries trust us to a greater or lesser extent. If signed treaties, agreements, mandates. and alliances mean nothing then there would be little reason for leaders of other countries to even meet with our president.
 
flavio said:
Gullible about what?
Click to expand...

I guess he is

Many countries trust us to a greater or lesser extent. If signed treaties, agreements, mandates. and alliances mean nothing then there would be little reason for leaders of other countries to even meet with our president.
Click to expand...

Flav, noone ever wrote a treaty that wasn't mutually benificial, even if the only benefit to the other guy was avoiding genocide. And noone ever signed a treaty believing that it would extend past the status quo.
 
flavio said:
How do you know this?
Click to expand...
because I watch TV. :p

flavio said:
No charges but they can just be detained indefinately until they can prove themselves innocent? Wow.
Click to expand...
We have so far haven't we? :swing:

flavio said:
They live in a country that we invaded....were they supposed to leave?
Click to expand...
Yep, they were told to leave before we got there.
 
Professur said:
I guess he is
Click to expand...
I must be gullible if you're vague enough that it can't be determined what you're referring to? I think you're using the wrong definition of gullible.

It's either....
1. Showing that you were incorrect that international laws are made by small and big guys.
2. The idea that If the US agrees to International Laws then they need to follow.
3. If the US doesn't abide by agreements then there's no reason for other countries to trust us in diplomacy, negotiation, treaties, alliances, trade agreements, etc.

So....1,2, or 3?

Flav, noone ever wrote a treaty that wasn't mutually benificial, even if the only benefit to the other guy was avoiding genocide. And noone ever signed a treaty believing that it would extend past the status quo.
Click to expand...
Somehow from that you're point is that we shouldn't honor any treaty, law, mandate, etc?
 
flavio said:
Great, I don't suppose you can back up your claim here?
Click to expand...
I guess I could take a picture of me standing beside my tv. :lol2:

flavio said:
You're not going to encourage criminal activity again are you?
Click to expand...
I never in encouraged criminal activity to start with, how could I do it again.

flavio said:
Source?
Click to expand...
again, it was all over tv man. I'll see if I can find you a link though... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top