Posted on 06/12/2004 8:11:29 PM PDT by SJackson
This was a speach given to a Democratic Party club in southern California. Chalmers Johnson needs to be in a prominent position in the Kerry campaign.
Clearly, it would be national suicide to let idiots like this run our national security apparatus again.
Chalmers Johnson is IMHO an undercover terrorist recruiter out to destroy life as we know it in the USA.
He promotes his communistic, anti-American rhetoric to anyone who will listen to him in the USA, Europe, the Middle East and Japan.
A Former CIA agent that thinks he has the "inside" scoop on what America does wrong, and IMHO an extreme leftist that would like nothing more than to have political clout with a Kerry Administration!
This is pretty scary stuff!
Nor does Chalmers Johnson have the authority to unilaterally amend the Conventions so that out of uniform irregulars are covered by its provisions.
Liberals and the media could really benefit from taking an extension course: International Law 103 (The Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War For Dummies).
It always amazes me these people think we're an empire builder .. if we were, Chirac would not be in charge .. and Paris would be AMERICAN. Same goes for Germany and Japan.
While I might think that probably would have been a better idea considering the French and Germans now practically spit on us .. we don't run those countries and so we couldn't possibly be empire builders.
I know that's simplistic, but I believe in plain talk.
Exactly.
These liberal idiots cite the Geneva Convention without ever bothering to actually read the Geneva Convention.
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention defines who qualifies as a Prisoner of War. If you are a combatant but do not qualify under the requirements set by Article 4, you are an illegal combatant and have neither belligerent rights nor POW rights.
Al Qaeda members, by not carrying arms openly, by dressing as civilians and by targeting civilians have failed three of the requirements outlined by Article 4.
The Geneva Convention must be a DNC talking point for the seminar callers. I'm stunned at their ignorance whenever they call a talk show.
And, no, they haven't read the Convention, so they can't possibly understand the distinction that is made. But that doesn't stop them from making the vilest accusations...
Does anyone ever hold this person accountable for these lies?
This person is an enemy of the United States and should be regarded as such.
I notice that this transcript is reproduced at the commie sites Common Dreams, Progressive Trail, and ZNet.
...that do not apply to illegal combatants like Al Queda
whoops. Post #8 already detailed that correction for me. Nice work.
"I believe that if the Republic is to be saved it will be as a result of an upsurge of direct democracy."
Athens fell b/c of Direct Democracy. Thats why Rome went with a Republic. Anyone of intelligence who pushed direct democracy is aware of this and should be considered suspect - they only seek a direct democracy b/c they know how to manipulate it to their own ends.
It's gotten to the point these Leftist nitwits cannot comprehend plain talk.
I'm sure those in power in the Liberal establishment understand the Geneva Convention as it's written. They've taken it so far out of context and spun it in such a way, the Liberal sheeple just gobble the spin of the controlling element of the Liberal movement as truth. I firmly believe that the ones who haven't bothered to read the Geneva Convention, are the same typical fringe kook wacko morons who voted for Buchanan in 2000.
bump
U. S. Constitution says, in part, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects
." The Geneva Conventions of 1949 covering the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians in wartime are treaties the U.S. government promoted, signed, and ratified. They are therefore the supreme law of the land.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
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.
theres a pickle both say supreme law of the land so do we subvert the constitution in order to follow the geneva conention and were not actually fighting anyone in a uniform so how do they qualify as POW's ?
Too many years of double speak.
What? Al Jazeera hasn't picked it up yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.