Another liar caught in a lie
The Moore-ons should be careful whom they latch on to as proof of their claims. They may find them lacking in the credibility department.
In scores of newspaper, magazine and broadcast stories, at a Canadian immigration hearing and in numerous speeches across the country, Massey has told how he and other Marines recklessly, sometimes intentionally, killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Among his claims:
Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters.
Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head.
A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery.
Massey’s claims have gained him celebrity. Last month, Massey’s book, “Kill, Kill, Kill,” was released in France. His allegations have been reported in nationwide publications such as Vanity Fair and USA Today, as well as numerous broadcast reports. Earlier this year, he joined the anti-war bus tour of Cindy Sheehan, and he’s spoken at Cornell and Syracuse universities, among others.
News organizations worldwide published or broadcast Massey’s claims without any corroboration and in most cases without investigation. Outside of the Marines, almost no one has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth.
He wasn’t.
Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated - according to his fellow Marines, Massey’s own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey’s unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.
Shame on him, and shame on each and every person who was so willing to believe him. Read the whole article. It paints the portrait of a liar who lied for the attention (Link goes to Quicktime, 30MB movie of Massey with Sheehan). Sound familiar to anyone?
Among his big piles of bullshit…
The details of Massey’s stories changed repeatedly.
For example, he almost always told his audiences and interviewers of an event he said he’d never forget: Marines in his unit shooting four civilian Iraqis in red Kia automobile.
In some accounts, Massey said Marines fired at the vehicle after it failed to stop at a checkpoint. In another version, he said the Marines stormed the car.
Sometimes he said three of the men were killed immediately while the fourth was wounded and covered in blood; sometimes he said the fourth man was “miraculously unscathed.”
Sometimes he said the Marines left the three men on the side of the road to die without medical treatment while the fourth man exclaimed: “Why did you shoot my brother?” In other versions, he said the man made the statement as medical personnel were attempting to treat the three other men, or as the survivor sat near the car, or to Massey personally.
There is no evidence that any of the versions occurred.
Many of us around these parts knew Massey’s stories smelled like bullshit when they came up the first time. I’m glad someone investigated him.
Some folks owe a lot of other folks apologies off this one...starting with the press that was all too willing to spread his lies without fact-checking anything.
Update
It gets worse. He’s giving evidence in a criminal trial in Ireland.
A former US marine has told a jury that he was given “carte blanche” to kill and was told to “shoot first and ask questions later” while serving in Iraq following the outbreak of war in 2003.
Jimmy Massey was giving evidence in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court trial of five antiwar protesters accused of criminal damage of a US aeroplane at Shannon Airport in February 2003.
In response to Mr Nix’s query as to what was their “firing policy”. Mr Massey replied: “To shoot first and ask questions later. We were given carte blanche to kill.”
Asked by counsel if this was in breach of the Geneva Convention, Mr Massey replied: “Yes sir”.
Mr Nix: “Did it happen?” - “It did, many times. Over a three month period more than 30 innocent people were killed that I know of.”
This prick deserves to be prosecuted.
Comments
Jimmy Massey is sick. And those who believed him couldn’t find their own butt even though it’s sitting on their heads.
Oh, wait . . . you say his book was published in France! I rest my case!
I can’t even comprehend why or how anyone would even do something this sleazy.
Mooreons should be careful where they get their facts? True.
The same is true for anti-Mooreons though, here is a review of the book that was the focus of Lee’s post on 28/10
http://www.powells.com/review/2005_09_01.html
Perhaps most misleading is Schweizer’s claim that Al Franken is a hypocrite because he opposes abstinence-only education programs despite “sen[ding] at least one of his children to a private New York school that boasts an ‘abstinence plus’ sex ed curriculum.” As Franken pointed out to TNR, abstinence plus is completely different from abstinence only, because the former teaches safer sex options which the latter excludes.
Just a thought, but yeah, in the case of this thread, I agree with the first post.
Massey, meet Jayson Blair. Blair, meet Massey.
Yeah, well
He might have lied, but what he said was true!
How I miss dan rather.
didn’t similar happen after the vietnam war? didn’t that often end up being dudes needing the attention to get over stress/guilt hangovers from the war itself?
Permit me to make the trolls’ arguments for them with this list of
DUMB THINGS I HAVE ACTUALLY HEARD LEFTIES SAY ABOUT THIS SUBJECT:
“What has actually happened in Iraq is far worse than any of his fabricated stories--so it really doesn’t matter.”
“Why, he’s a dirty fibber! There are no psychopaths in the armed forces!”
“This guy is a double douche if he’s lying. Because not only should he not be lying about this manner of thing, but because now every hard-right fundie will declare this resounding proof that anyone who has ever said anything negative about Iraq is a liar. And we’ll have to listen to it.”
“Here we go again. Discredit one blatant psycho/loon, whom most of us had probably never heard of prior to this, and somehow all other valid criticism is immediately rendered irrelevant. How I love human psychology...”
“Good thing we now know the truth. All of our good soldiers are treating the good Iraqis just like they’d treat mom and pop, and killing or imprisoning the bad Iraqis in accordance with the internationally recognized conventions of war. Yay America!”
[In response to some smartass who said “Yes, I agree, Saddam Hussein IS a criminal."] “Oh get off it. I hold you personally responsible for the deaths of 2000 brave men and women. You and your chest thumping ilk make me want to puke.
I’ll support a necessary war any time. If this were WWII, I’d be there now, and so would you, even though you had to be drafted, you mewling coward. Saddam was a sackless piece of shit, but he had no big guns, no mushroom clouds, no nukes, no nuthin’, we neutered him in the first Gulf War. Get it? No Americans needed to die for that turd bucket. Three years of useless death. Anyone who supports that is beneath contempt.
By the way, I know that your dedication to your own opinions will stir you to argue with me, which puts you squarely in the minority of Americans, who are actually tired of seeing our kids blown up for BS spewers like you.”
didn’t similar happen after the vietnam war?
Yes, his name was John Kerry.
And finally we know just how far people are willing to go to discredit this whole Iraq thing.... It’s my firm belief that nobody ever got anything good accomplished by telling lies when they could have told the truth.
Al Franken must REALLY be regretting that book title by now....
Yes, his name was John Kerry.
That’s it, he’s hoping to parlay this whole thing into a shot at the White House.
For example, he almost always told his audiences and interviewers of an event he said he’d never forget: Marines in his unit shooting four civilian Iraqis in red Kia automobile.
I’m sure it was seared into his memory. Literally seared, I tell you.
Firstly, the Geneva Conventions, last time I checked, does not require one nation that signed it to adhere to said policies if their opponent either has not signed it, or if the enemy refuses to follow the conduct of war.
While I haven’t seen combat, I know people who have, and “shoot first, ask questions later” is certainly not against the Geneva Conventions, so long as it is reference to combatants (legal and/or illegal), and not actual civilians.
What really muddles this up is that the “resistance fighters” dress up like civilians before carrying out their acts of terror/destruction. In that case, they have no legal protections under the Geneva/Hague Conventions. While people may say “they have rights as humans!”, it should be noted that might is right is the way the world works, and so we don’t have any true intrinsic rights.
Jake was here reading your first post of quotes of lefties in response to this really made me sick.
Has for
and shame on each and every person who was so willing to believe him
Its cause thats what they want to believe, seriously its like the troops who support the effort and are proud of what they accomplished in Iraq means nothing to the press. Its like they feel there opinion doesn’t matter. I saw a Soldier in Iraq sharing this sentiment of being proud and being greeted as a liberator on FoxNews. But remember thats just because FoxNews is just a tool used by the GOP.
But what would make this man think he would get away with it? Yes, there is always some stubborn asshole who will not listen to the truth no matter how many times you drum it into him but that is not everyone. Did this twit really think no one would check his story or that people who were actually present wouldn’t say something? What a dope!
Massey, like Moore, is of the ilk that doe snotbelieve that their words will be held accountable. You are supposed to believe everything they say when they say it. Should they change their story you are to believe it without applying any critical thinking.
Accountability and credibility are not exactly watchwords of any zealot, right or left. There are ample examples of both.:)
Wish we could hold EVERYONE responsible for what they said. The problems with Iraq are bad enough without shitheels like this Massey fellow making them out to be even worse; I mean, yes, it’s bad in Iraq, but it’s also getting better day by day. I BELIEVE that. And despite the Abu Ghraib incident, I cannot believe the vast majority of our troops are amoral monsters; Massey’s attempt to paint them as such goes beyond reprehensible into outright disgusting.
Classic case of our liberal media taking any evidence it can get against the War in Iraq and dirtying President Bush’s honor while double-checking and triple-checking any sources for the War, then not publishing them.
Firstly, the Geneva Conventions, last time I checked, does not require one nation that signed it to adhere to said policies if their opponent either has not signed it, or if the enemy refuses to follow the conduct of war.
With all due respect, this doesn’t appear to be correct.
From the Conventions:
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.
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention1.html
In other words, a country signing the provisions of the Geneva Conventions agree that the Conventions will govern their behavior. The reasoning that “the other guy did it” doesn’t work because the country is still bound by the provisions it agreed to.
Sorry, I got the Hague Convention mixed up with the Geneva...*runs off and checks Hague*...nope, same clause is in there, too (Chapter 6, Article 18), though some portions of some articles do seem imply that non-High Contracting parties might not be extended the same protections..
I apologize for the error(s)...I don’t know why I remembered the text as such...possibly from previous documents of the Geneva Conventions (there have been...8 to this date?)?
With all due respect, this doesn’t appear to be correct.
From the Conventions:
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.
But doesn’t this mean that the Parties are only bound in their mutual dealings, i.e. with each other? I know it sounds nit-picky, but that’s the way it was told to me in my Geneva Conventions class.
But doesn’t this mean that the Parties are only bound in their mutual dealings, i.e. with each other? I know it sounds nit-picky, but that’s the way it was told to me in my Geneva Conventions class.
No. It clearly states that even if one of the countries in a conflict is not a signator of the Accords, the other country is still bound by them.
A good example of this is that during WWII, the US lived adhered to the Geneva Accords when dealing with Japanese prisoners, even though Japan was not a signature of the Accords.
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.
Anyone that can read sees that it clearly says “MUTUAL" i.e. between them !
Exemple : France, the US and China are all at war with each other, then France and the US MUST respect the GC in their MUTUAL dealings even though China did not sign it !
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.[/quote]
Im a little bad on confusing legal talk… or whatever, but what i read out of this is:
2 powers in oppisition abide by contract when dealing with each other if one has signed the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention is to be followed in all senses by both parties as long as the unsigned one agrees to follow it.
Can someone help me out on my translation…
This is also found in the geneva conventions....
1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(In oher words) “Combatant Status: Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war…However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws”
However, the US officialy claimed that the war in Iraq was over months ago therefore, the present fightiers aren’t war prisoners but violent criminals which has nothing to do with the GC anyway.
Without a government, i.e. a legal, sovreign body that runs the country or part of it their is no possible war, it’s called civil trouble or armed protest, not war.
wow,, i apologize for my spelling…
However, the US officialy claimed that the war in Iraq was over months ago therefore, the present fightiers aren’t war prisoners but violent criminals which has nothing to do with the GC anyway.
Without a government, i.e. a legal, sovreign body that runs the country or part of it their is no possible war, it’s called civil trouble or armed protest, not war.
Apparently nobody told the insurgents the war was over… I can see why people might view the insurgents as violent criminals, mainly because they are. But they are also combatants and this is war, these issues have not fallen below a virtual line that defines it as civil unrest.
The Geneva Convention, in my opinion, is not designed for modern warfare and dealign with combatants that wear civilian clothes, target civilians, hide behind women or children and refuse to act in accordance with the general rules of acceptable warfare.
It begs the question that because our enemies fight a war through despicable and cowardly means does that give the US the right to act in the same manner?
The question that also comes up is can the muslims have it both ways? They proclaim jihad (for lack of a better term) and that everyone should fight the evil imperialist dog, but when the inevitable counter attack happens they cry that only civilians were killed. I will be the first to admit that collateral damage is guaranteed when insurgents the skirts of their women. Their hypocracy reeks.
But they are also combatants and this is war
i dont think the are according to the Geneva Conventions
It begs the question that because our enemies fight a war through despicable and cowardly means does that give the US the right to act in the same manner?
I agree as many should, but i dont think the US is fighting in the same manner.. (its hard to tell if your were implying that, or responding to something else...)
I heard a rumor that Jimmy Massey is now saying that he was told lie about the war. I know bringing up rumors can be considered careless, but i was wondering if anyone heard anything more on this....
This is way to similar to the winter soldiers of Vietnam
Classic case of the “By Any Means Necessary” mentality of the left. Okay to lie (note to Al Franken, this meets the dictionary definition of ‘lie’, as opposed to Bush’s many ‘mistakes’), publish forgeries, commit voter fraud, whatever, so long as it’s done in pursuit of the noble cause of toppling the American capitalist regime, eh?
Yessiree Bob!!
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.
Pretty clear to me what mutual means and if you don’t practice and live by the Geneva Conventin rules you don’t necessarily deserve to die by them either.
the US officialy claimed that the war in Iraq was over months ago
Cite a source for this “official” claim. While you are at it, tell us who signed the surrender or armistice documents.
Without a government, i.e. a legal, sovreign body that runs the country or part of it their is no possible war, it’s called civil trouble or armed protest, not war.
Iraq has a legal, sovereign government.
"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.”
I think someone explained it pretty well, but let’s take WWII...Allies have UK, US, USSR...Axis have Germany, Japan, France, Italy (of course there are others, but this is an example).
UK, US, Germany, France, and Italy signed the Geneva Conventions, while USSR and Japan have not. This means that the combatants that did sign the convention must honor the convention in regards to *each other* (ie mutual dealings), while those that did not are not subject to such protections (e.g. USSR and Japan).
It was meant for a many-nation war, as in 1949, the war that was used as a reference was World War II...it was not designed for today’s wars between only 2 nations and whatnot. Thank you to Buuzher for pointing this possibility out.
A good example of this is that during WWII, the US lived adhered to the Geneva Accords when dealing with Japanese prisoners, even though Japan was not a signature of the Accords.
gitarcarver, that does not prove the United States *had* to deal with said prisoner’s the way they did. That just proved that the US had the moral superiority in that case. As Japan had not signed the Conventions, the US was not bound to follow the Conventions in their mutual relations, whereas the US would be bound to follow the conventions in their mutual relations with Germany.
Please visit this link: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/960315in.html
The relevant question is about halfway down the page and begins with “When you were at the Justice Department you authored a number of memoranda...”, or you can search for the word “combatants”, which will bring you to the correct question/answer.
Cite a source for this “official” claim. While you are at it, tell us who signed the surrender or armistice documents.
It ended with the arrest of Saddam Hussein, at which point the government, which as a practical matter already was dismantled, became officially defunct.
Iraq has a legal, sovereign government.
Of which not a single person attacking Iraqi civilians or Americans is a member of its standing military. Our conflict therefore is not with this government.
Well, massey’s not letting the disclosure of his true lies stop him from cashing in on our capitalist economic system. From his website:
Two Jimmy Massey Interview DVD’s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hear Jimmy talk about military recruiting techniques, military service, military deployment in a war zone, the insurgency, checkpoints, house raids, PTSD, health care for veterans and other issues without the media spin. Perfect for house parties, antiwar events, civic & church groups, anywhere citizens gather to discuss the war and the future of United States. Learn how the war in Iraq represents not only a humanitarian nightmare but a significant threat to US national security.
Get Both DVD’s for $50 (in US)
It’s only $100 for our friends across the pond, you know, the one’s that are hauling burnt-up automobiles off their streets.
That just proved that the US had the moral superiority in that case. As Japan had not signed the Conventions, the US was not bound to follow the Conventions in their mutual relations, whereas the US would be bound to follow the conventions in their mutual relations with Germany.
No. The US abided by the Geneva Conventions because it had to.
From the Conventions:
Art. 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
There is no wiggle room here. The signature countries are bound by the Conventions in all circumstances.
Also, for the article you referenced, it is important to note that while the Conventions cover the bahavior of the signature countries, it also defines which individuals are under the protection of the Conventions. Insurgents and terrorists do not fall under the protected classes in the Conventions.
Lastly, it should be noted that John Yoo’s “memo’s” have been widely assailed as being contrary to federal law, international law, and international treaty. He is not the best source to try and prove your point.
From the Conventions:
Art. 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.There is no wiggle room here. The signature countries are bound by the Conventions in all circumstances.
Between, signatories. If that were the case, then the phrase “in mutual relations” would not appear anywhere in the conventions, as such. I’m looking at from the point of view that asks “why, if there are no exceptions, does it state that if one warring nation is not a signatory, does it only apply to signatories in their mutual relations?”. I can see where you are coming from--and I would certainly advocate the point excepting illegal combatants. Do you see why I question your perspective?
Also, for the article you referenced, it is important to note that while the Conventions cover the bahavior of the signature countries, it also defines which individuals are under the protection of the Conventions. Insurgents and terrorists do not fall under the protected classes in the Conventions.
Insurgents do fall under the protected classes in the Conventions, so long as they wear some uniform or identifying symbol, carry arms openly, and operate within the custom of war. The second they do not distinguish themselves from civilians and don’t carry arms openly, they are illegal combatants, and have no protections.
Lastly, it should be noted that John Yoo’s “memo’s” have been widely assailed as being contrary to federal law, international law, and international treaty. He is not the best source to try and prove your point.
I wasn’t using all his memo’s, just one. Which happened to, in my opinion, be spot on. I didn’t read the rest, as they did not concern the current discussion. International law? No such thing, the Constitution is the Law of the Land. Nations can recognize, or fail to recognize, international law on any basis.
How is it that someone’s memo’s be against any kind of law? Unless they are inciting violence, etc., he is free to say what he wills in his memos without fear of prosecution or persecution.
Responding to Don Miguel
Here is, as requested, the source :
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/
Iraq has a legal, sovereign government.
Yeah but it seems pretty clear I wasn’t talking about the new one.... Common
Between, signatories.
Please reread Chapter 1, article 1 of the conventions.
If that were the case, then the phrase “in mutual relations” would not appear anywhere in the conventions, as such.
Yes it would appear. The phrase is not saying to apply adhere to the Conventions only “in mutual relations” but to adhere to it BECAUSE of the mutual relations.
This is not a foreign concept. For instance, military academies have their recruits take an oath saying they “will not lie cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.” Simply because they may deal with an individual outside of the academy does not relieve them of the responsibility to stick with their oath.
I wasn’t using all his memo’s, just one. Which happened to, in my opinion, be spot on. I didn’t read the rest, as they did not concern the current discussion. International law? No such thing, the Constitution is the Law of the Land. Nations can recognize, or fail to recognize, international law on any basis.
Yoo’s memos were ripped because of the fact they were contrary to US law, the Constitution, International Law (upon which he was commenting) and treaties.
How is it that someone’s memo’s be against any kind of law? Unless they are inciting violence, etc., he is free to say what he wills in his memos without fear of prosecution or persecution.
“Contrary” does not mean “in violation of.”
Art. 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
There is no wiggle room here. The signature countries are bound by the Conventions in all circumstances.
Why then are there further articles and conditions of terms? If this is wholly encompassing and unequivocal, there should be no need to clarify with other articles.
If that were the case, then the phrase “in mutual relations” would not appear anywhere in the conventions, as such.Yes it would appear. The phrase is not saying to apply adhere to the Conventions only “in mutual relations” but to adhere to it BECAUSE of the mutual relations.
“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”
now im confused
This is not a foreign concept. For instance, military academies have their recruits take an oath saying they “will not lie cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.” Simply because they may deal with an individual outside of the academy does not relieve them of the responsibility to stick with their oath.
The Code of Ethics at the Military Academies are not the Geneva Conventions. Strawman attack.
Again, as w0rf said, if it is unequivocal, why are there clarifications?
Yoo’s memos were ripped because of the fact they were contrary to US law, the Constitution, International Law (upon which he was commenting) and treaties.
Yes, I used a single one. You’re trying to blanket the one statement by referring to other memos of his. Prove that statement false directly, and singularly, or accept that it makes a good point.
Again, there is no such thing as international law for the United States--the US might follow them out of its own interests, or for higher reasons, but the US can stop following (or never follow) international law at any time, the authority of international law being determined by the individual states that make up an international body. The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and all international laws are null and void before it.
Why then are there further articles and conditions of terms? If this is wholly encompassing and unequivocal, there should be no need to clarify with other articles.
Your question is better asked of Yoo, who argues that contrary to Chapter 1 / Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, the US can withdraw or suspend the Accords because there is no specific prohibition in the Accords preventing it. Yoo acknowledges that other commentators and international courts have determined that Chapter 1 / Article 1 is binding, but he feels that international law does not support their contentions and rulings.
His argument focuses on the fact that while the Conventions do allow for a party to withdraw from the treaty, there is no provision in it for a High Power to suspend the provisions of the treaty at any time. He believes that as there is no provision against the suspension of the Conventions, it is acceptable to do so.
He offers no US law to base this on, but rather attacks the ruling of an International Court that ruled that Chapter 1, Article 1 is the governing principle at all times for the High Powers.
Strawman attack.
An example is not a strawman attack.
Yes, I used a single one. You’re trying to blanket the one statement by referring to other memos of his. Prove that statement false directly, and singularly, or accept that it makes a good point.
Let me try and make this clear for you. The MEMOS he wrote while working for the DOJ were assailed as being contrary to US law, the Constitution, treaties, and international law. By definition, the MEMO he wrote is a part of the body of work he wrote I refered to as his MEMOS.
Secondly, the memo to which you refer has been nicknamed “the Torture Memo.” (This is a horrible and misleading moniker for this memo. Yoo makes many valid points in this memo - points which are specifically supported by law and treaty.) However, the memo itself is not law. The memo has been attacked as being against US Law (such as USC 2441), the Constitution, treaties (such as the Geneva Convention) and International Law (which Yoo himself uses to support his case.)
It is clear from Yoo’s memo that he is making a case that the Geneva Accords do not apply to such groups as the Taliban, Al Qaeda and terrorists. In my opinion, he makes that case very effectively based on direct provisions in the Conventions dealing with uniforms, command structure, etc. He also makes the case that as those “groups” are not states, they cannot be afforded the protection of the Accords as the Accords apply only to states, not such groups.
However, using his statement that Chapter 1 Article 1 means that a High Power is not bound by the provisions of the Accords in all cases is contrary to the very arguments he makes later in the memo.
In arguing that Article 1, Chapter 1 is not applicable to the signature High Power at all times, Yoo dismisses the opinion of the International Court in the case of Nicaragua v United States which states:
The Court considers that there is an obligation on the United States Government, in the terms of Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, to ‘respect’ the Conventions and even ‘to ensure respect’ for them ‘in all circumstances’, since such an obligation does not derive only from the Conventions themselves, but from the general principles of humanitarian law to which the Conventions merely give specific expression.
Obviously, this is not codified US Law. It is an interpretation of the International Law. Yoo acknowledges this and in the absence of direct US law, makes his opinion based on international law. That being said, Yoo notes that the Supreme Court has written:
where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations.
Yoo continues, “In other words, while it was willing to apply customary international law as common federal law, the court readily acknowledged that the political branches and even the federal judiciary could override it at any time. No Supreme Court in modern times has challanged this view.”
Therefore, as International Law (as set forth in Nicaragua v United States) agrees that the conduct of the High Powers is absolute, and in the absence of any contrary US law, decision, or orders, we are bound by the Geneva Conventions at all times.
International Court rulings are not binding, as the US can decide if it has authority or not. The same as whether the US decides to follow any “international law” or not, and for the same reasons, not subject to international law unless it wants to be.
On top of that, the information in his memo was correct, but for the wrong reasons, but I did write the reasons why it was correct here (after you said the Geneva Conventions made no mention for resistance groups).
Regardless of his reasons, or lack thereof, he definitely had one hell of a good point...even if he got it right for the wrong reasons.
Thank you for acknowledging that he made said point, and that said point was correct.
This started out with a discussion on whether a High Power had to abide by the Geneva Conventions when in conflict with a non-signatury nation.
You cited Yoo’s “memo” as “proof” that the Accords are not binding. As of this moment, Yoo is wrong.
International Court rulings are not binding, as the US can decide if it has authority or not. The same as whether the US decides to follow any “international law” or not, and for the same reasons, not subject to international law unless it wants to be.
I never said that International Laws were binding to the US. That was something that you kept trying to attribute to me. I did say, and maintain, that Yoo used International Law to buttress some of his arguements and people have assailed the positions he took as contrary to the the very International Law he was citing.
On top of that, the information in his memo was correct, but for the wrong reasons, but I did write the reasons why it was correct here (after you said the Geneva Conventions made no mention for resistance groups).
Once again, you misquote me to try to prove your point. I never said that the Geneva Conventions did not cover resistance groups. I said, and was very specific about the wording, that the Accords do not “insurgents and terrorists.” If you can find either “insurgents” or “terrorists” in the Accords, I will admit I was wrong. Until then, my statement is correct.
Regardless of his reasons, or lack thereof, he definitely had one hell of a good point...even if he got it right for the wrong reasons.
Geez, this sounds familier to “fake but accurate.” I have no idea what other point you think Yoo got right or wrong. The original point we were discussion - the applicability of the absolute authority of the Geneva Accords when dealing with non signatory nations - he got wrong.
Thank you for acknowledging that he made said point, and that said point was correct.
Once again, the point he tried to make and why you brought him into this conversation, was wrong.
Please stop trying to shift the goalposts.
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.
This is not all that difficult. Any country who signs the Geneva Convention has agreed to abide by the Convention in all instances when in a conflict with another country who has signed the Convention. In cases where a Signatory Country and a non-Signatory country engage in conflict, the Signatory Country agrees to abide by the Convention as long as the non-Signatory country does the same. Given the exceptions listed further down, seeing Article 1 of the Convention as somehow all encompassing is simply flawed.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Although there is no enforcement mechanism for “International Law”, the US is bound by any treaty it signs as Article VI, Clause 2 shows. That is why the US doesn’t just sign every crap UN treaty that comes along.
However, the US officialy claimed that the war in Iraq was over months ago therefore, the present fightiers aren’t war prisoners but violent criminals which has nothing to do with the GC anyway.
Responding to Don Miguel
Here is, as requested, the source :
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/
The Carrier Landing and announcement were for the ending of major combat operations...not the war itself. More specifically, it was for the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and her crew who, according to the article directed to: “...currently en route to NAS North Island, has been at sea for nearly 10 months, after participating in both the Afghanistan and Iraq war theaters. “ It was their mission which was accomplished.
A comment President Bush made as well, included in the article, was that, “The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done.” That does not mean that we’re pulling out...as some on the left have thought this event should have meant. The war was still being fought, but, at that point, it was believed that the major combat operations were over, not expecting the insurgent opposition to follow.
This is not all that difficult.
Oh sure . . . that’s because you understand English and aren’t handicapped with a political agenda like the International Court of Justice. :)
Oh sure . . . that’s because you understand English and aren’t handicapped with a political agenda like the International Court of Justice.
Just goes to show what happens when you combine lawyers and the UN...shudder =)
RSS (Subscribe)
Classic case of the “By Any Means Necessary” mentality of the left. Okay to lie (note to Al Franken, this meets the dictionary definition of ‘lie’, as opposed to Bush’s many ‘mistakes’), publish forgeries, commit voter fraud, whatever, so long as it’s done in pursuit of the noble cause of toppling the American capitalist regime, eh?