Ukraine vs Russia

[naosnule]

What a country considers illegal or not, means absolutely nothing for whether or not it is right or not. You seem to dislike torture, but do you realize that depriving people of their freedom is one of the worst things you can do against any human being?

Censoring is another one.

A group of soldiers can very well lie and state "hurrr durrr that guy shot at us". That fact and the opinion that censoring and removing the freedom of an individual is among the worst things one can possibly do to it, accentuates the need of a quick but fair trial.

Edit: Of course using the term "prisoner of war" is an extremely convenient way to handle what would otherwise be a messy situation . It is the easy-mode out so it is no wonder why countries use it to reduce their own headache.

The Judicial Process is what determines what is illegal or not. It is an interpretation by the Independent Judiciary that determines what is law. That is what it means to live in a constitutional democracy. Yes, depriving people of their freedom is bad but it is sometimes necessary in a fair and just manner.

Censorship is bad. We have almost no censorship in the United States. The only censorship really is child porn and TV/movie ratings for parents to control what their kids watch. Government legal actions like with Snowden reporting sometimes cross the line but overall that is very minor. Russia is very, very censored and the press is routinely killed over there for disagreeing with Putin and the State or reporting on the Oligarchs.

We use the term prisoner of war because we are at War. All prisoners captured in Afghanistan are now given rights under U.S. military law and Afghan law. They can't be legally removed from the country without the permission of the Afghan government. This was not the case before there was an Afghan government and under the Bush administration.

All prisoners at Guantanamo have lawyers now. The Supreme Court over-ruled Bush and Cheney. Most are held and will be tried in a court under Military Law (They attacked military targets or civilian targets in Afghanistan). Some are being held under U.S. Civilian Law (They Planned attacks on the U.S. or Europe) and will be tried in a civilian court. All of them have the right to appeal the decision.

Again, you need to separate the fact that they are prisoners (legal) from the fact of what happened to them (illegal). In the cases of innocent prisoners who were taken from their countries, The U.S. Supreme Court has already heard the appeals of all of them that had been illegally rendered from a foreign country and either freed them or continued to hold them. Those that were freed are currently suing Cheney and Bush officials in Germany and other countries. I hope they win.

The War in Afghanistan and Iraq (an illegal war in my opinion) and the Bush administration (and yes the Obama administration to a much, much lesser degree) have led to some dark, dark times following 9/11.

Putin's actions in Ukraine are like Iraq. He is illegally occupying a foreign country. The difference is that Bush wanted to remove a corrupt dictator that was robbing his country and Putin wants to put one back in.

You have a fixation about what is illegal and legal, when you could focus more on what is right and isn't right. Laws are ideally formed based on what a society thinks is right and isn't right, not the other way around.

Edit: Which is why I return to the question: how long time do those people have to wait for a fair trial, and do they get compensation if their freedom is taken for more than a week without a fair trial?

[Claeyt]

And this is what is wrong with the world as a whole.

You murder countless people, rape children, instigate terror, yet still have Legal rights ?

Worthless peice of **** laws.

This world would actually get somewere if it took some Shia law into its own system.

More Eye for an Eye is required if you ask me.

PS: There is such illegal activitys in WAR? Shocking, WAR is illegal? WOW better be scared ? This world has come to a whole new ***** level of stupidity.

Its all about perspective, wether legal or illegal. Were as some will condem actions as illegal and criminal, others will see them as actions of heros and never consider them as criminal.

The Supreme Court determined that what the Bush Administration did (Rendition, Black Sites, Torture) was illegal. They can't charge them ore prosecute them. That's up to the Attorney General of the United States. He determined not to prosecute them because of the question of criminal illegality. The Executive policy was illegal under the constitution but it's up in the air if it broke any criminal laws as determined by legislative legality. It was a very close call for Bush's lawyer teams that created the torture and rendition policy. I think several of them lost their law licenses. Future Attorneys General of the U.S. may prosecute.

Several of the prisoners who were tortured are suing Bush officials in foreign countries under their civil forfeiture laws. Several of them are also suing in the United States by saying that Bush officials broke their constitutional rights. I'm sure the Supreme Court will hear those too.

Afghan War, The Iraq war, The Crimean Occupation and wars like that fall under international law, international treaty obligations and stuff like the U.N. Charter. The Iraq war was illegal under international law and under the U.N. Charter. The U.N. was going to vote against it so Bush went it alone.

Putin's illegal occupation of the separate country of Ukraine breaks not only International Law and the U.N. Charter like Bush did with Iraq but also many, many international treaties between them, the U.S., NATO countries and Ukraine itself. Russia and Putin have signed internationally binding legal treaties and economic treaties guaranteeing the sovereign borders of Ukraine on multiple occasions. Putin just wiped his ass with all of that and because of that all past and future treaties signed by Russia are worthless in the eyes of the other countries. The U.N. may still force him to veto U.N. sanctions and a U.N. military mission to Ukraine. He'll look like even more of a tyrant after that. He has no heroes to show for this. He has no legality to show for this. He's only got bad choices and a hostile international community. I'll say it again. Syria cost him all influence in the Sunni Muslim world and Ukraine will cost him all influence in his bordering states (except the insanity of Belarus).

[gregl26]

That is what it means to live in a constitutional democracy.

Nope.. America is a Republic not a democracy.

Here is a great educational video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I

Yes, depriving people of their freedom is bad but it is sometimes necessary in a fair and just manner.

Nope

Censorship is bad. We have almost no censorship in the United States. The only censorship really is child porn and TV/movie ratings for parents to control what their kids watch.

America is currently ranked 46 in press freedom. http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php


My prayers are with everyone involved over there but it is none of America's business.

[Claeyt]

You have a fixation about what is illegal and legal, when you could focus more on what is right and isn't right. Laws are ideally formed based on what a society thinks is right and isn't right, not the other way around.

Edit: Which is why I return to the question: how long time do those people have to wait for a fair trial, and do they get compensation if their freedom is taken for more than a week without a fair trial?

Laws have never been created by what society thought was right or wrong. Society and Countries don't exist without laws. Laws come first and then Society and Nation. The first Law of a Democracy is a Constitution. That is when a nation starts. After that, Society very rarely actually creates law. They elect people to create laws and when they don't like laws they elect someone who will change it. Societal change and opinion form the ideas behind law but often actual legal standing is far behind what society thinks.

These prisoners have already had a trial. Sometimes 2 or 3. Their trials started after the Supreme Court decision.

The Bush administration wanted to hold them indefinitely based on the fact that they're prisoners of war (no trial available) which means that they would be held until the "War" ended. The Supreme court said no. Some of them have been found guilty under civilian jurisdiction for planning bombings around the world or financing terrorist cells and stuff like that.. Some of them have been found guilty under military jurisdiction for carrying out or planning bombings of civilian targets in Afghanistan as an 'enemy combatant' which the U.S. system considers an 'unlawful combatant'. It's basically a designation that the person was attempting terrorism in the guise of war. The U.S. also used this legal definition on 30 something German saboteurs during WWII some of which they hung.

Most of these prisoners have been found guilty of a crime. Some of them may face the death penalty. All evidence found under torture was thrown out. Some of them may never be prosecuted by the U.S. and will be handed over to Afghan authorities to be tried there.

Again, these prisoners are held legally. What was illegal, immoral and wrong was the torture, rendition, and deaths.

The men that were illegally rendered but who were innocent are no longer there. U.S. military or civilian courts freed them. Most of the Prisoners are gone. They are jailed in other countries or in the U.S.

[darnokpl]

Laws come first and then Society and Nation.

Who makes laws if there is no society?

[naosnule]

You have a fixation about what is illegal and legal, when you could focus more on what is right and isn't right. Laws are ideally formed based on what a society thinks is right and isn't right, not the other way around.

Edit: Which is why I return to the question: how long time do those people have to wait for a fair trial, and do they get compensation if their freedom is taken for more than a week without a fair trial?

Laws have never been created by what society thought was right or wrong. Society and Countries don't exist without laws. Laws come first and then Society and Nation. The first Law of a Democracy is a Constitution. That is when a nation starts. After that, Society very rarely actually creates law. They elect people to create laws and when they don't like laws they elect someone who will change it. Societal change and opinion form the ideas behind law but often actual legal standing is far behind what society thinks.

These prisoners have already had a trial. Sometimes 2 or 3. Their trials started after the Supreme Court decision.

The Bush administration wanted to hold them indefinitely based on the fact that they're prisoners of war (no trial available) which means that they would be held until the "War" ended. The Supreme court said no. Some of them have been found guilty under civilian jurisdiction for planning bombings around the world or financing terrorist cells and stuff like that.. Some of them have been found guilty under military jurisdiction for carrying out or planning bombings of civilian targets in Afghanistan as an 'enemy combatant' which the U.S. system considers an 'unlawful combatant'. It's basically a designation that the person was attempting terrorism in the guise of war. The U.S. also used this legal definition on 30 something German saboteurs during WWII some of which they hung.

Most of these prisoners have been found guilty of a crime. Some of them may face the death penalty. All evidence found under torture was thrown out. Some of them may never be prosecuted by the U.S. and will be handed over to Afghan authorities to be tried there.

Again, these prisoners are held legally. What was illegal, immoral and wrong was the torture, rendition, and deaths.

The men that were illegally rendered but who were innocent are no longer there. U.S. military or civilian courts freed them. Most of the Prisoners are gone. They are jailed in other countries or in the U.S.

I didn't ask if they've had a trial or not, I asked how long time they wait for that trial. To be more specific: on average how long time does a prisoner of war wait for a fair trial?

I also asked if they get compensation for being held over a week against their free will without a fair trial.

Furthermore, I wrote " Laws are ideally formed based on what a society thinks is right and isn't right, not the other way around.". Keywords being "formed" and "ideally". "Ideally" is of course a matter of opinion. Creation is not necessarily the only time at which a formation occurs. A change of form is also formation.

[fox]

Putin's actions in Ukraine are like Iraq. He is illegally occupying a foreign country. The difference is that Bush wanted to remove a corrupt dictator that was robbing his country and Putin wants to put one back in.

Nope.
1st. Iraq do not have border with USA.
2nd. Putin is a legal president of Russian Federation, which was chosen by means of independent vote recognized by the authorities of other states.
3rd. Russia and Putin do not occupying any foreign country yet officialy.
4rd. Even if Russian army forces in Crimea, it is made with the permission of authorities of the Crimea goverment.
5th. Putin do not corrupt dictator, if you such speak, officially you don't recognize Russian Federation as country and people of that country.
6th. Goverment in Kiev is not legal at now. And such "goverment" in Kiev made anticonstitutional laws and orders. "Such people" in Kiev got forcely the rule in their hands. "Such people" in Kiev dictates dictatorial not on behalf of the people under pressure from "terrorist". All laws and orders from new "goverment" can't be laws from people of Ukrain, because nobody do not chooses that goverment as democratic goverment.
7th "Goverment" in Kiev more corrupted dictators as president of Russian Federation mr.Putin.

[Claeyt]

I've been trying to keep it simple for all of you using Google Translate but....

That is what it means to live in a constitutional democracy.

Nope.. America is a Republic not a democracy.

Nope. I was talking about type not form and how it relates to law. Ex. Our Constitution defines our Democracy in the form of a Republic. To put it another way our constitutional democracy takes the form of a Republic and is not a Pure Democracy or Constitutional Monarchy.

Yes, depriving people of their freedom is bad but it is sometimes necessary in a fair and just manner.

Nope

Why are you two talking about never restricting the freedoms of a person when they've broken the law. Do you guys not believe in a fair and just trial sending people to prison?

Censorship is bad. We have almost no censorship in the United States. The only censorship really is child porn and TV/movie ratings for parents to control what their kids watch.

America is currently ranked 46 in press freedom. http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php


My prayers are with everyone involved over there but it is none of America's business.

America dropped in the Press Freedom Index for the exact reason I said, the Snowden reporting and the U.S. government trying to prosecute reporters over leaking classified material, but we're still pretty high. They stopped that and they've basically given up trying to control the story and Time magizine almost gave Snowden 'Man of the Year'. Supposedly he lost to the pope by 2 votes.

Censorship is more than just the press is also about freedom of speech. In some of those countries higher than us on the list they censor printing and speech. Especially far right ideologies. Try printing or even photo-copying 'Mein Kampf' anywhere in Europe. Try forming a 'NAZI' party in Europe. Speech is restricted and censored much more there than here. Pornography laws are sometimes stricter in those free press countries as well. I'm not saying that Press isn't the most important, all I'm saying is that you can get away with almost anything short of printing state secrets in America.

This is absolutely America's business. We are tied to Ukraine by treaty and have guaranteed their sovereign integrity under a military treaty with Russia. World Peace and democratic stability are our problem.

[Claeyt]

Laws come first and then Society and Nation.

Who makes laws if there is no society?

generally these days a small well-learned group of men and women elected as representatives.

[Claeyt]

I didn't ask if they've had a trial or not, I asked how long time they wait for that trial. To be more specific: on average how long time does a prisoner of war wait for a fair trial?

I also asked if they get compensation for being held over a week against their free will without a fair trial.

Furthermore, I wrote " Laws are ideally formed based on what a society thinks is right and isn't right, not the other way around.". Keywords being "formed" and "ideally". "Ideally" is of course a matter of opinion. Creation is not necessarily the only time at which a formation occurs. A change of form is also formation.

A change of form may be a formation of a law but not legally.

"Laws are the written opinions of what a nation thinks is right or wrong. Generally with more words and less meaning." - Mark Twain

A prisoner of war is held by all countries until the end of the war as defined by the Geneva convention. They don't get a trial. Some wars have had exchange programs and such but not in awhile. These prisoners were defined as prisoners of war by the Bush Administration at first.

Some of them who were horribly abused and then proven innocent are suing for compensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri