Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jones" data-source="post: 168385" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>You're going to have to explain to me how this:</p><p></p><p>Translates into this: </p><p></p><p> I'm just not seeing it. I swear you're just beating that straw man of your's to death, glad I'm not him....<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p> No, but you are the only person who seems to think that whatever Human Rights Watch says in their FAQ is tantamount to International Law. Or perhaps they were just the first google result you could find who had an <em>interpretation</em> of International Law that sorta fit (if you close one eye and squint real hard) with your erroneous statement:</p><p></p><p> Even Human Rights Watch doesn't go that far. From your own post:</p><p> "Respecting the rights of the population" doesn't translate into "you're not allowed to leave or it will be a violation on International Law"</p><p></p><p>You didn't quote from the original sources because you know as well as I do that they don't support you at all. Allow me:</p><p></p><p>From the Geneva Conventions, Article 6:</p><p></p><p>You can read all the relevant articles <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III:_Occupied_territories" target="_blank">here</a>, though I'm sure you already have.</p><p> </p><p> In other words, once we are no longer an occupying power we are not bound by the laws governing an occupying power (why does seem so obvious to everyone but you?). In addition there is no prohibition in the Geneva Conventions or anywhere else against us leaving, regardless of the situation. </p><p></p><p> I gotta give credit to the administration for not making that ridiculous argument, can you imagine President Bush getting on TV and saying "My fellow citizens, I was planning to bring the troops home, but my Legal Team has just informed me that we can't <em>because it would be a violation of International Law" <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/thumbup1.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":thumbup1:" title="Thumbup1 :thumbup1:" data-shortname=":thumbup1:" /></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em> </em>Take Care</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 168385, member: 4805"] You're going to have to explain to me how this: Translates into this: I'm just not seeing it. I swear you're just beating that straw man of your's to death, glad I'm not him....:) No, but you are the only person who seems to think that whatever Human Rights Watch says in their FAQ is tantamount to International Law. Or perhaps they were just the first google result you could find who had an [I]interpretation[/I] of International Law that sorta fit (if you close one eye and squint real hard) with your erroneous statement: Even Human Rights Watch doesn't go that far. From your own post: "Respecting the rights of the population" doesn't translate into "you're not allowed to leave or it will be a violation on International Law" You didn't quote from the original sources because you know as well as I do that they don't support you at all. Allow me: From the Geneva Conventions, Article 6: You can read all the relevant articles [URL="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III:_Occupied_territories"]here[/URL], though I'm sure you already have. In other words, once we are no longer an occupying power we are not bound by the laws governing an occupying power (why does seem so obvious to everyone but you?). In addition there is no prohibition in the Geneva Conventions or anywhere else against us leaving, regardless of the situation. I gotta give credit to the administration for not making that ridiculous argument, can you imagine President Bush getting on TV and saying "My fellow citizens, I was planning to bring the troops home, but my Legal Team has just informed me that we can't [I]because it would be a violation of International Law" :thumbup1: [/I]Take Care [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top