Your "trap" was obvious and your analysis is ridiculous. By your argument we are not allowed to defend ourselves against a full scale nuclear assault. Instead we must simply accept our fate and kiss our asses good bye. If your argument were true then nuclear war would be far more likely as the kooks would simply wipe the "civilized" people of the world out.

Your argument is exactly analagous to telling a person that is being murdered that if they respond with lethal force they will be guilty of murder.

In short, you are obviously completely unaware of the concept of proportionality in warfare. This concept is far older and far more basic than the GCs or even the HCs.

So long as our response was a proportional response to Canadian aggression then we would not be guilty of any war crimes.

This concept is far older and far more basic than the GCs or even the HCs.

Exactly! I hope your reading this Mr. Baldie, because it has the ring of truth, and I think you should now that.

But it's not up to me to say so. Far better for you to stop your hipocracy, stop your lies and stop living life as if it doesn't matter. Supply-side and lower taxes have always been better for people here (America) and if you cannot see that, well, I'm sorry, friend (and I say that losely). Live and learn, citizen!

[forgive my piggybacking, juschultz. I intend no offense, merely a chuckle or two; and it's the last time, promise!]

I fully agree that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate become US law, so long as they are constitutional. The clause of the Vienna treaty you cite is unconstitutional because it conflicts with how the constitution specifies treaties become US law. So, the president's signature alone may be enough for other countries to consider us a party to a treaty but the USSC would laugh you out of court if you tried to cite such a treaty to them as governing law, and rightfully so.

"I'm not sure how I ended up as the troll for trying to correct Derbig as politely as possible about his error. But I guess that's why they left you in charge." -- omooex

LOL

It was a tough call, omooex. Yet, the continual back and forth over the same issue(s) was the determining factor. I had originally figured that Old Thrasher would end up being recognized but, in the end, it seemed that the exchange between you and Mooser disrupted the flow of the board more than he.

Ain't power wonderful?

Link at sig

"So long as our response was a proportional response to Canadian aggression then we would not be guilty of any war crimes." -- jschultz

If that's the case, we should never have put Japanese on trial for war crimes after WWII since both sides in that conflict engaged in atrocities.

I find your explanation regarding claiming "self-defense" as a justification for responding to a war crime against it rather confusing also. If there is no danger of the initial attack continuing, the term self defense is not applicable.

If, for instance, a person gets his ass kicked in a bar fight which was started without justification, you're saying that the victim may claim the right of "self defense" to retaliate against the aggressor some time after the initial fight.

If we were to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear strike upon us with the expectation that such retaliation would end further nuclear attacks on us, then I can see where you could justify their use by the attacked country. However, once the immediate threat of attack has ended, self-defense no longer applies.

Should we immediately declare that anyone attempting to board an aircraft with a "cutting instrument" be charged with terrorism and hauled off to Guantanamo? Of course not.

AP has this:

Nov 19th, 2008 | RAYMONDVILLE, Texas -- A Texas judge has set an arraignment for Vice President Dick Cheney, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other officials accused of involvement in prisoner abuse.

It is quite possible to follow Glenn's analysis and say that Holder wanted to deprive combattants/terrorists of Article 3 status. But quite frankly, the case is weak. From the interview excerpts it appears that Holder thought they didn't deserve full POW status. That has nothing to do with Article 3, which applies whether or not they are prisoners of war. The Hamdan case doesn't prove the opposite, on the contrary, it affirms it.

Holder used the word "Convention", not "Conventions, and the context (whether or not to grant POW status) makes clear in my mind that he was referring to the third Convention, not to the Geneva Conventions in their entirety with their Common Article 3. It really is a leap to say, on the basis of this interview, that he didn't think Article 3 was applicable.

There could be a contradiction with what he said a few days earlier, when he talked about holding prisoners until the end of hostilities - so, POW status - but his wording is legalspeak, "the case can be made" kind of stuff which doesn't really reveal his own opinion.

If this repeats another post, sorry. Didn't see my post on the matter and supposed I hit a wrong button.

Okay you who fancy yourself to be liberals - - you with your closed minds and closed eyes and closed ears - - you've been challenged.

"Brightstar 2 - The Resurrection" wrote:

There is NEVER anything wrong with hearing all sides of an argument

Frankly, I find Savage to be highly interesting as an ICONOCLASTIC thinker. The man is very intelligent. He is not just someone who regurgitates Republican talking points lockstep. And while he does lean right, that alone is not a crime. He is nearly as quick to condemn the right when it is being stupid as well.

Once you get past his bombast and your own virgin ears, you might too find him to be someone who makes you think and see past your ideological blinders.

Since I am a socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist, I pick and choose my informers in the media and elsewhere merely by how much discussion and thought they generate in me. So O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter to me are basically useless. Limbaugh is very smart and makes me think, but his adoration of the Republicans sickens me.

Really, if you fancy yourself to be a liberal, it would serve you and others like you well to open your eyes to other thoughts. I thought that was the DEFINITION of liberal, being open to other philosophies (and obviously, I am always startled at how closed-minded, SMALL-MINDED, blindered, and hypocritical the left really is)

- - Brightstar 2 - The Resurrection
- - 07:48 AM

* * * * *

Okay you fancy liberals, open your eyes and ears to the BIG MIND of the radio star who inspires Brightstar.

Let's pick a date at random.

How about yesterday?

Here's a partial transcript from yesterday's broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: New Hampshire, Dennis, you're on The Savage Nation.

CALLER: Thank you, sir. Just -- my question was -- it's not a question. It's just -- I'm 62 years old, and when I went to school, if you didn't cut the mustard, you stayed back. Now, I guess we have this thing called social promotions, which means that --

SAVAGE: Yes, and you have self-esteem -- if -- in fact, now, if you do cut the mustard a little too sharply, they single you out for being a racist.

CALLER: Exactly. Exactly. And my -- I would like to hear, you know, your comments on this whole aspect of social promotion, because usually the people that are socially promoted end up, unfortunately, like Columbine, bringing guns to school or whatever.

SAVAGE: No, no, when you're socially promoted, you wind up as president of the United States. If you're socially promoted your whole life and nobody challenges you because you're of the proper constitution and composition and you look exactly right and no one's -- everyone's afraid to say a word to you, why, you then go to Harvard, you then go to the law review, you then get elected, you then get elected to the next level. This is what happens in a country that's intimidated by its own policies and its own fears.

CALLER: You've put it in perspective for me, and I appreciate that. And it's --

SAVAGE: But this is just the beginning of it, my friend. You haven't seen any of what's coming in this country. You are going to see the wholesale replacement of competent white men, and I'm targeting exactly the group that's gonna be thrown out of jobs in the government. And I'll say it, and I'll be the first to say it, and I may be not the only -- the last to say it. I am telling you that there's gonna be a wholesale firing of competent white men in the United States government up and down the line, in police departments, in fire departments. Everywhere in America, you're going to see an exchange that you've never seen in history, and it's not gonna be necessarily for the betterment of this country.

CALLER: I agree with you 100 percent, and --

SAVAGE: Why am I the only one who has the nerve to say what's actually going on and what is going to happen under this guy unless he's stopped?

- - From the November 18 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation.

* * * * *

Okay you fancypants liberals, now don't you see how empty your lives have been and will continue to be unless you join brighstar and tune in and listen and keep your eyes and ears open so you can be filled up with all that "iconoclastic" "thinking" that's filling up brightstar?