Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member empovsun
    Adepto 'er perfectu
    08 Sep '13 05:22
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/abu-ghraib-iraq_n_3876177.html

    can't get any better than this
  2. 08 Sep '13 07:38
    Originally posted by empovsun
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/abu-ghraib-iraq_n_3876177.html

    can't get any better than this
    So basically US personnel could run a concentration camp complete with gas chambers and ovens as long as it is not on sacred US soil,(I'm not saying they would, just that they could) and then carry out air strikes against another regime on the grounds that the regime violated human rights.
  3. 08 Sep '13 08:16 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    So basically US personnel could run a concentration camp complete with gas chambers and ovens as long as it is not on sacred US soil,(I'm not saying they would, just that they could) and then carry out air strikes against another regime on the grounds that the regime violated human rights.
    The abu-ghraib prison killed plenty of us and uk soldiers indirectly had the Iraqis out with machine guns and mortars- I think anyone / everyone would turn terrorist in the face of what they did - they created a civil war -

    The ruling you posted encourages anti american sentiment (aka muslim / african countries selling mineral rights to china, serious long term trouble)

    They should pay up!!
  4. 08 Sep '13 10:44 / 2 edits
    The Iraq war was a confusing to me as its the only war I could think off that was won then lost - Saddam was toppled easily with no real resistance, then that jail was set up and Iraq descended into civil war with all the allied forces still there, the US lost moral authority. I'm sure more lives were lost then, they should pay compensation for that jail, especially as it was run by well paid private contractors - in America people sue if there coffee is to hot!
  5. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    09 Sep '13 00:38
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    So basically US personnel could run a concentration camp complete with gas chambers and ovens as long as it is not on sacred US soil,(I'm not saying they would, just that they could) and then carry out air strikes against another regime on the grounds that the regime violated human rights.
    Loosely translated - Might makes right!
  6. 09 Sep '13 10:57
    Originally posted by bill718
    Loosely translated - Might makes right!
    Well the other thing too is that the US is viewed by the rest of the world as a moral standard and the terrorists do not like this. In fact the terrorists are jealous of our freedom and democracy. It is up to us to help these other countries to have such a good democracy as we do. And don't forget the golden rule- whoever has the gold makes the rules. I am sure all that gold is safe and sound in fort Knox.
  7. 09 Sep '13 11:00
    Originally posted by empovsun
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/abu-ghraib-iraq_n_3876177.html

    can't get any better than this
    A ruling with no other purpose than discouraging others from bringing a lawsuit against the thugs.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    09 Sep '13 12:39 / 2 edits
    While it's understandable that laypeople would jump to the silly conclusions that are being jumped to in this thread, this decision is entirely procedural and based on the statutory authority of the federal court. This is not about whether the actions at Abu Ghraib were correct or incorrect or who is right and wrong here.

    I know this is a difficult concept for laypeople to grasp, but courts in the United States only have the authority to adjudicate cases that the law that established the court gives them the authority to hear. If a traffic court judge is 100% sure that the defendant is guilty of murder, that still doesn't give him the authority to sentence the defendant to 20 years in prison. Likewise, the US Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress unconstitutional but cannot overrule a state small claims court's interpretation of state law.

    If this particular federal court has no authority to hear tort actions brought based on actions on foreign soil, then it has no authority to hear the case, regardless of its merits. Now, a jurisdictional determination can be right or wrong like any other determination, but please realize that this decision was entirely procedural and not substantive.
  9. Standard member empovsun
    Adepto 'er perfectu
    10 Sep '13 00:26
    Originally posted by sh76
    While it's understandable that laypeople would jump to the silly conclusions that are being jumped to in this thread, this decision is entirely procedural and based on the statutory authority of the federal court. This is not about whether the actions at Abu Ghraib were correct or incorrect or who is right and wrong here.

    I know this is a difficult concept f ...[text shortened]... rmination, but please realize that this decision was entirely procedural and not substantive.
    it's a load of crap, and you know it

    they should pay for their crimes, not for the crimes of their imprizoners
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Sep '13 00:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by empovsun
    it's a load of crap, and you know it

    they should pay for their crimes, not for the crimes of their imprizoners
    Oy.

    I give up.
  11. Standard member empovsun
    Adepto 'er perfectu
    10 Sep '13 00:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Oy.

    I give up.
    i get what you are saying - the court ruled legally, and it is up for the common observer to determine whether it was "right" or "wrong"

    what i don't understand is if this court couldn't rule on the actions of those soldiers, then how can they rule that the victims have to pay up legal costs? isn't that a double standard?
  12. 10 Sep '13 03:49
    Originally posted by empovsun
    it's a load of crap, and you know it

    they should pay for their crimes, not for the crimes of their imprizoners
    Yeah!!!! Me and SH76 aren't silly laypersons like the rest of you. It is obvious to all of us seasoned lawyers that it is procedural. sheesh!!!!!
  13. 10 Sep '13 19:17
    Originally posted by sh76
    While it's understandable that laypeople would jump to the silly conclusions that are being jumped to in this thread, this decision is entirely procedural and based on the statutory authority of the federal court. This is not about whether the actions at Abu Ghraib were correct or incorrect or who is right and wrong here.

    I know this is a difficult concept f ...[text shortened]... rmination, but please realize that this decision was entirely procedural and not substantive.
    Well then your federal courts are crap, and your laws are innefectual, british courts are always ruling on the actions of british service personnel abroad and often find in favour of victimised non britiish, as a lay person am I wrong in thinking that the US has not signed up to the geneva convention in relation to its own service personnel and will not allow them to be tried at the hague no matter what the evidence?
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Sep '13 19:35
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Well then your federal courts are crap, and your laws are innefectual, british courts are always ruling on the actions of british service personnel abroad and often find in favour of victimised non britiish, as a lay person am I wrong in thinking that the US has not signed up to the geneva convention in relation to its own service personnel and will not allow them to be tried at the hague no matter what the evidence?
    There are probably other fora in which to bring this action, though I'm not sure offhand what they may be.

    Though I do have to say that I'm devastated that you don't like the jurisdictional rules of our federal court system.
  15. 10 Sep '13 20:53
    Originally posted by sh76
    There are probably other fora in which to bring this action, though I'm not sure offhand what they may be.

    Though I do have to say that I'm devastated that you don't like the jurisdictional rules of our federal court system.
    If you insist on being a yank you will need to develop a much thicker skin, dont be devastated be nicer.