Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WhiteHouse.gov)   President George W. Bush: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." (Applause)   (whitehouse.gov) divider line 692
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

27718 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2005 at 11:03 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



692 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-05-26 05:35:44 AM  
WHAT IS AN "UNLAWFUL COMBATANT," AND WHY IT MATTERS:

Are al Qaeda Fighters Prisoners of War?

First, what does it take to qualify as a prisoner of war? Article IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of irregular militias like al Qaeda qualify for prisoner-of-war status if their military organization satisfies four criteria:

(Convention 3, Article 4)
The criteria are: "(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; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Al Qaeda does not satisfy these conditions. Perhaps Osama bin Laden could be considered "a person responsible for his subordinates," although the cell structure of al Qaeda belies the notion of a chain of command. But in any event, al Qaeda members openly flout the remaining three conditions.

Al Qaeda members deliberately attempt to blend into the civilian population - violating the requirement of having a "fixed distinctive sign" and "carrying arms openly." Moreover, they target civilians, which violates the "laws and customs of war."

Thus, al Qaeda members need not be treated as prisoners of war.

See also, Convention 4, Article 4: Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are


What is so sad is the hysterical liberals, who after reading this will still say, inexplicably, that somehow the Geneva Convention applies to Al Qaeda.

SO TELL ME, WHERE THE FARK DOES IT SAY IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION THESE ASSHATS QUALIFY?!??!?!
 
2005-05-26 05:42:18 AM  
eraser8
And, what if the policeman actually said there was a bomb in your car? That is the proper analogue to the Newsweek case.


Except the policeman didn't actually confirm the existence of the bomb.

That's just another lie. The principal source, according to Isikoff and Newsweek did, in fact, say precisely what was written in the magazine. But, after publication, that source said that he was no longer sure that his information was accurate. That is why the story was retracted.

Here's the original line from the Periscope item:

Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash.


Here's the retelling of the source-checking by Newsweek in the follow-up:

Isikoff knew that military investigators at Southern Command (which runs the Guantnamo prison) were looking into the allegations. So he called a longtime reliable source, a senior U.S. government official who was knowledgeable about the matter. The source told Isikoff that the report would include new details that were not in the FBI e-mails, including mention of flushing the Qur'an down a toilet.


And later, in page two of the story:

On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report.


Big question: is this a mention of troops confirmed having flushed the Koran down the toilet, or merely mention of detainees accusing them of such and a subsequent (and possibly unfruitful) investigation, as with the latest-revealed FBI reports. If the latter, it's not an actual confirmation of the incident. Notice also in the latter part how the mentions of the flushing are referred to as "concerns," as though they hadn't yet been resolved or confirmed.

Newsweek's words here look deliberatley hazy, but even if we assume for the sake of argument that the source specifically said that the accusations were not only investigated, but also confirmed, this is still only one source, while Newsweek cites "sources," plural. Backtracking a bit to mention of the second source on page 1:

A SouthCom spokesman contacted by Isikoff declined to comment on an ongoing investigation, but news-week National Security Correspondent John Barry, realizing the sensitivity of the story, provided a draft of the NEWSWEEK periscope item to a senior Defense official, asking, "Is this accurate or not?" The official challenged one aspect of the story: the suggestion that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, sent to Gitmo by the Pentagon in 2001 to oversee prisoner interrogation, might be held accountable for the abuses. Not true, said the official (the periscope draft was corrected to reflect that). But he was silent about the rest of the item. The official had not meant to mislead, but lacked detailed knowledge of the SouthCom report.


So the second source they use to verify the story said nothing at all about the Koran-flushing in response to a yes-or-no question, but Newsweek went ahead and put him down as saying yes anyway. All they had to do was ask, "Okay, that bit is wrong, but is the rest accurate?" That alone means that Newsweek lied when they said that sources, plural, confirmed the incident, leaving at best a single-source story, at worst a no-source exaggeration.

It was not a false assignment. On what are you basing the claim that Newsweek misrepresented their souce?

See above. The misrepresentation of the first source is a bit hazy, but the second is obvious.

The story may not have been wrong.

No, the charges of desecration may have been right or wrong. The story itself was definitely wrong.
 
2005-05-26 05:44:23 AM  
Video Vader has to much free time. Seriously.
 
2005-05-26 05:44:28 AM  
uclajd:
You Sir, YOU ROCK.
 
2005-05-26 05:47:49 AM  
Gavino
The primary tenet of Guantanamo is that accussation equals guilt. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. And why not believe the detainee? By the founding principles of the USA to everything written on the subject of jurisprudence, he is an innocent man without a blemish on his character - or have you abandoned that, too, now?


Please tell me you're joking. Never mind that most of these guys were found on the battlefield. What happens when a supposedly innocent, blemishless inmate accuses an innocent, blemishless soldier of abuse? If we assume innocence until guilt is proven, and the charge is being leveled against the soldier, then shouldn't we assume the soldier's guilt until ample evidence is provided?

Put another way: Why should be believe the detainee over the soldier? True, some soldiers have abused prisoners, but some detainees have also lied about abuse, both of which have been documented. This is a specific case; we need specific evidence. If such evidence comes up against the soldier, go ahead with the proper punishment, but not a minute before.
 
2005-05-26 05:49:55 AM  
sandez
Video Vader has to much free time. Seriously.


Meh, can't sleep. :P

If you think this is bad, I've seen some farkers go for 6 hours consecutively. Once saw a thread where a dude had been going 4 or 5 posts an hour for 12 hours with only a 1 hour break.
 
2005-05-26 05:51:10 AM  

If salary burdens are lowered, then paying higher salaries become less of burden for employers to pay...correct?


No, it becomes unnecessary. You're arguing from a colloquial point of view about things that have very specific meanings of which you obviously are not aware.

Just because you haven't used or perceived any future need to use UI or Social Security yet does not mean you never will--and since you don't pay one penny of UI, no, you don't get that regardless. Employers pay that based on their risk of tossing people out on the street for no reason.

As has been mentioned numerous times by numerous people, these are SOCIAL INSURANCE plans, not individual insurance plans. That is, insurance to protect society from YOU and your own ability to fark things up not the other way around--and society has no reason to believe that your own hubris isn't going to be your own destruction and we'd all like to make sure you don't become an even greater pain in our collective ass than you already are.

Just think, if your supreme cleverness is so great that you manage to earn more than $80k per year, not a dime above that will be subject to SS witholdings. If you make less than that, well, suck up, honey, because you ain't that clever.
 
2005-05-26 05:52:09 AM  
With regards to the Geneva Convention, the US failed to go through the proper process to make an individual determination as to whether those detained were POWs under Geneva or something else. The Supreme Court decided, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that, while the detentions were not illegal per se, those held in Guantanamo had the right to prove that they were not enemy combatants.

Furthermore, independent of the Geneva Convention the is the Convention against torture which is also US law, which states that you are not supposed to torture anyone for any reason and you must have mechanisms in place to see that it doesn't happen "by accident".
 
2005-05-26 05:53:53 AM  
uclajd
What is so sad is the hysterical liberals, who after reading this will still say, inexplicably, that somehow the Geneva Convention applies to Al Qaeda.


Maybe they just wanna be charitable, hell if I farking know. :P

Excellent post.
 
2005-05-26 05:57:14 AM  
uclajd

No, what all those crazy liberals (read: virtually the entire human population of the planet outside the United States and about half of that within them) are upset about is that there has been no transparency to prove either way what the status of those individuals might be or any justification either way.

Your [flawed] analysis of the Geneva conventions would abrogate protection for civilian combatants entirely (organized or not), which in the context of an invading, occupying power is certainly ridiculous, not to mention a significant portion of the United States forces that do not wear regular uniforms.
 
2005-05-26 06:03:00 AM  
President Bush is right about the propaganda needing catapulting!


Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.

He is admitting that he has to repeat stuff to get it over the propaganda of the liberal farktards.

Didn't the neocomms take English? How could they have misunderstood what he said so bad?
Oh wait, they wanted to misunderstood.
 
2005-05-26 06:04:13 AM  
Just in case you'd forgotten....
[image from zefrank.com too old to be available]
 
2005-05-26 06:04:21 AM  
KleanKutKid writes: No, you're taking my comment out of context.

How do you figure?

National Defense is mentioned in the Constitution, Social Welfare is NOT.

You complained about individuals and societal demands. You made no reference to constitutional issues. So, are you now retracting your hatred of all things collective?
 
2005-05-26 06:05:06 AM  
If we assume innocence until guilt is proven, and the charge is being leveled against the soldier, then shouldn't we assume the soldier's guilt until ample evidence is provided?

A rather telling analysis. You assume they are BOTH innocent until one, the other or both are proven guilty or whatever the hell it is they've been accused of.

Whew, that was a tough one, wasn't it?
 
2005-05-26 06:10:03 AM  
leathermidget

Just in case you'd forgotten....

Really persuasive ad hominem attack. Just like the weatherman is a liar when he says it won't rain, but it does.

Get a new argument.
 
2005-05-26 06:10:17 AM  
uclajd

What is so sad is the hysterical liberals, who after reading this will still say, inexplicably, that somehow the Geneva Convention applies to Al Qaeda.

SO TELL ME, WHERE THE FARK DOES IT SAY IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION THESE ASSHATS QUALIFY?!??!?!



You seem to assume that everyone in Guantanamo is in Al Qaeda. Not so. There are doubtless innocent people in there being treated like common terrorists. Instead of a fair trial to establish their guilt they were given a sack over their heads and a free flight to Cuba. The American way no longer appears just to the outside world, which makes Bush's repetative speeches about spreading democracy and freedom seem all the more hollow.
 
2005-05-26 06:15:35 AM  
equusdc:

what all those crazy liberals (read: virtually the entire human population of the planet outside the United States and about half of that within them)

That is just plain wrong. Your defining world view and ideological stance based on your view of the current administration. I am impressed with your ability to condescend those (read: all of us) that you feel are linguisticly inept with your plied methodology and potentially disconcerting lexicon.
But I'm from Texas. We just call it "BULLshiat".

/I left out an apostrophe and a couple of vowels just to piss you off.
 
2005-05-26 06:20:16 AM  
eraser8: So, are you now retracting your hatred of all things collective?

No. I'm a hyper-individualist. If it's for "us" and we "all" pay for it, fine.(if we must). If it's for "us" and only some of us pay for it...fcuk that.
 
2005-05-26 06:21:59 AM  
KleanKutKid

I call it years of study on several continents in the field of international relations (all prior to the current administration, incidentally), but hey, just wild guessing going on here.

If the resulting methodological approach to analyzing (note: analysis implies a methodology, sparky, ergo that's redundant...and so was that... and that...) causes you to feel linguistically inept (note: ally, not ly, ergo, proof, you are) because my lexicon is disconcerting, we here in the nation's capital just call that "illiteracy" or just plain, good old fashioned "ignorance."
 
2005-05-26 06:22:51 AM  
VideoVader writes: Except the policeman didn't actually confirm the existence of the bomb.

Except he did.

The misrepresentation of the first source is a bit hazy, but the second is obvious.

You initially made claim that what was reported in the magazine was not accurate according to the information received. That's simply not true. Did Isikoff speak to a government official who said the FBI has confirmed incidents of abuse?

Isikoff says yes. Newsweek says yes.

Nevertheless, you accused the magazine of deliberate deception.

Newsweek went ahead and put him down as saying yes anyway.

He confirmed the story by implication. When asked to review the piece's accuracy, the officer did not challenge the Quran allegations.

It turns out that the officer was unfamiliar with the report, so his silence on the question of the Quran was not an actual confirmation. But, given the context, Newsweek was not unreasonable in its treatment.

The story itself was definitely wrong.

It is NOT definitely wrong. We do not know whether these incidents have been confirmed by investigators. That is the charge from the magazine.

Question: were you this upset about the Bush administration's misrepresentations about Iraq?
 
2005-05-26 06:25:33 AM  
Correction:

If we assume innocence until guilt is proven, and the charge is being leveled against the soldier, then shouldn't we assume the soldier's innocence until ample evidence is provided?

/bleh
 
2005-05-26 06:26:06 AM  
KleanKutKid writes: If it's for "us" and we "all" pay for it, fine.(if we must).

So, you must now support Social Security. It is definitely a program which benefits all of society.

I happily pay into Social Security not because I want retirement income. I happily pay because I understand that the program helps protect my other assets. It helps protect your assets, too.
 
2005-05-26 06:27:18 AM  
Baader-Meinhof

I've lost two friends so far in Iraq and my brother is still there. If you support Bush's rich mans war then JOIN THE FARKING ARMY. Words cannot express how much contempt I have for those of you voted for this obvious fraud.

That is incredibly disrespectful to both your brother and your two friends. The world has been pretty messed up for quite a while now, and you friends gave their lives and your brother is risking his to make it right. This is not a rich mans war. This had to be done, and if the US hadn't done it, it might never have happened in time. Better just enjoy the journey since I'm not, and I doubt you are, in the position to make any changes on this scale.
 
2005-05-26 06:27:53 AM  
BillCosby

The Supreme Court decided, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that, while the detentions were not illegal per se, those held in Guantanamo had the right to prove that they were not enemy combatants.


Completely, utterly wrong as usual, Bill. Hamdi held that American citizens detainees, of which Hamdi was, are entitled to such process. Also, Hamdi was held in South Carolina, not Guantanamo. American citizen, on American soil. Quite different from foreign dirtbag in Cuba.

Hamdi does not apply to the rest of those dirtbags, only the dirtbag Hamdi.

Anyone care to read the case? (It's a 5-4 decision, so all of you libs screeching about Bush v. Gore will surely think this isn't a binding decision, right?).

Anyone see the REASON THE GENEVA CONVENTION REQUIRES UNIFORMS?????????
 
2005-05-26 06:28:25 AM  
2005-05-26 06:10:03 AM uclajd
[image from memefest.org too old to be available]

/Can you see the signs?
 
2005-05-26 06:29:50 AM  
alienated:

I believe the job of the President is to confront problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents or future generations


Like Clinton and North Korea?

/flame on.
 
2005-05-26 06:35:28 AM  
binnster

You seem to assume that everyone in Guantanamo is in Al Qaeda. Not so.

And you know this how? I know an Arabic translator for the US military and he won't tell me a damn thing. The NY Times and every other reporter poking around doesn't know a gawddamned thing. But you know what's going on in there?

There are doubtless innocent people in there being treated like common terrorists.


And what is our motive in wasting valuable cells and intelligence personnel in our most maximum security detention facility on innocents? This isn't some Abu Graib run by retards like that Englund chick. This is the Pelican Bay of the military justice system run by our best intel people. And we are wasting its finite space on innocents why?

Instead of a fair trial to establish their guilt they were given a sack over their heads and a free flight to Cuba.


Right, a trial for each, like we did each Nazi and each Japanese soldier in WWII. This is war, not criminal law for crissakes.
 
2005-05-26 06:36:07 AM  
eraser8:

I happily pay into Social Security not because I want retirement income. I happily pay because I understand that the program helps protect my other assets. It helps protect your assets, too.

Putting your money in the hands of the US Congress/at their whim protects your assets?
 
2005-05-26 06:38:20 AM  
uclajd writes: Hamdi held that American citizens detainees, of which Hamdi was, are entitled to such process.

Quite right. But, in a separate case, Rasul v. Bush, the Court ruled that non-citizen detainees in Cuba can also mount judicial challenges to their detention:

We therefore hold that 2241 confers on the District Court jurisdiction to hear petitioners' habeas corpus challenges to the legality of their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base...What is presently at stake is only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing. Answering that question in the affirmative, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals...
 
2005-05-26 06:38:57 AM  
uclajd

As you have so keenly noted, the "battlefield" was the farking cities. You are suggesting that someone firing a gun from their own kitchen window in their own country at an invading army negates their status as prisoners of war when captured just because they're not wearing a farking uniform -- and, regardless, *poof* everyone is Al Qaeda? Geezuz.

Farking amazing.

You know, I can respect the fact that soldiers on the ground may not be able to make the distinction. However, once someone has been detained, disarmed, stripped and locked in a cell, it's time to figure out who the hell they are instead of just assuming that everyone who had a gun is a terrorist because they shot at the invading army -- you know, kind of like you'd probably respond if, say, Canada rolled a few tanks down your driveway and "accidentally" blew up your grandma's house. Yeah, you'd be a real scumbag to attempt to pop off a few.
 
2005-05-26 06:41:17 AM  
eraser8
You initially made claim that what was reported in the magazine was not accurate according to the information received. That's simply not true. Did Isikoff speak to a government official who said the FBI has confirmed incidents of abuse?

Isikoff says yes. Newsweek says yes.


Officials. Plural.

Newsweek says that the first guy incorrectly remembered mentions of concern about the flushing charges, not that they were confirmed as actually having happened. The other guy didn't even say anything about it.

He confirmed the story by implication. When asked to review the piece's accuracy, the officer did not challenge the Quran allegations.

That's when a newspaper is supposed to write, "no comment." They had no problem saying that about another guy: "A SouthCom spokesman contacted by Isikoff declined to comment on an ongoing investigation...", so they should've said that the second source commented on one part but not the others. That alone effectly translates any implication present in the initial quote; the reader can choose to take his lack of comment as sounding fishy, if he wants.

It turns out that the officer was unfamiliar with the report, so his silence on the question of the Quran was not an actual confirmation. But, given the context, Newsweek was not unreasonable in its treatment.

I can understand their reasoning, but it was still wrong.

It is NOT definitely wrong. We do not know whether these incidents have been confirmed by investigators. That is the charge from the magazine.

If we get evidence of the charges later on, fine, Newsweek was definitely wrong to state that multiple sources had confirmed the story when the article went to print.

Question: were you this upset about the Bush administration's misrepresentations about Iraq?

Nice try. I didn't like those misrepresentations, either, as I've said many times on Fark, and I pin blame on the administration accordingly. What's upsetting me now is that, unlike Bush's misrepresentations, you're denying that Newsweek's misrepresentations were wrong.
 
2005-05-26 06:44:13 AM  
uclajd asks: And you know this how?

Maybe he knows it because the military has admitted as much on the release of prisoners there.
 
2005-05-26 06:44:30 AM  
My thoughts on the whole Bush Social Security "plan" - if it has to be "packaged and sold", there must be a benefit for the seller, and since details are sketchy at best, it is safe to assume the "plan" is not worthwhile to the American public. Bush has yet to act out of altruism for the benefit of all Americans, and I don't believe this situation is any different. "Caveat Emptor" certainly applies.

Truth is self-evident. Bullshiat is what must be repeated over and over until it is accepted as truth.

Trust me, I know. I worked in advertising for years.
 
2005-05-26 06:47:40 AM  

Putting your money in the hands of the US Congress/at their whim protects your assets?


Yes, because it prevents millions of people from becoming desperately destitute because their personal retirement plans didn't pan out as cleverly as they had planned. Think of it as torch and pitchfork insurance against teeming unwashed masses of starving pensioners who have had their pensions dissolved and are now stalking through the streets like zombies in a bad George Romero movie.

Since you can't tell who is going to fark up until it's too late, we all pay for that insurance to avoid having to drive over the bodies littering the streets.
 
2005-05-26 06:48:57 AM  
"I mean we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do and when it gets overextended, morale drops ... I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest. The mission needs to be clear and the exit strategy obvious."

- George W. Bush
Presidential Debate, Oct 11, 2000
 
2005-05-26 06:53:38 AM  
uclajd:

2005-05-26 06:27:53 AM uclajd [TotalFark]

BillCosby

The Supreme Court decided, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that, while the detentions were not illegal per se, those held in Guantanamo had the right to prove that they were not enemy combatants.

Completely, utterly wrong as usual, Bill. Hamdi held that American citizens detainees, of which Hamdi was, are entitled to such process. Also, Hamdi was held in South Carolina, not Guantanamo. American citizen, on American soil. Quite different from foreign dirtbag in Cuba.

Hamdi does not apply to the rest of those dirtbags, only the dirtbag Hamdi.


prisoners "can be detained during an armed conflict, but the detaining country must release and repatriate them 'without delay after the cessation of active hostilities,' unless they are being lawfully prosecuted or have been lawfully convicted of crimes and are serving sentences" (citing Arts. 118, 85, 99, 119, 129, Geneva Convention (III), 6 T. I .A. S., at 3384, 3392, 3406, 3418)).
 
2005-05-26 06:57:29 AM  
eraser8

All Rasul did was grant the district court jurisdiction to hear the case, a procedural decision - it certainly didn't rule on the merits of what Bill Cosby was claiming. It didn't confer any other right other than habeas corpus, and certainly not constitutional protections afforded a citizen (e.g., 5th and 6th Amendments). And I seriously doubt those rights will be conferred in the end by the district court, and in any event certainly not by SCOTUS.

equusdc

it's time to figure out who the hell they are instead of just assuming that everyone who had a gun is a terrorist because they shot at the invading army -- you know, kind of like you'd probably respond if, say, Canada rolled a few tanks down your driveway and "accidentally" blew up your grandma's house.

Ha, like Canada could make it to California before Boy Scouts or a girls' soccer team stopped them. If not, I assure you I am better armed than Canada is, so I could avoid capture.

But unlike the Taliban, the USA is recognized by the UN and other countries as an actual nation, and we have a military that wears uniforms for these things. The Taliban was a rogue regime, not recognized as a state, so how could anyone shooting at us be legitmate? After all, you are the libs screaming about international law - the Taliban was NOT recognized as a legit government!
 
2005-05-26 06:57:58 AM  
uclajd

And you know this how? I know an Arabic translator for the US military and he won't tell me a damn thing. The NY Times and every other reporter poking around doesn't know a gawddamned thing. But you know what's going on in there?


1. Read this.
2. People are released from Guantanamo without charge. Unless you suggesting that the US government is in the habit of releasing Al Qaeda operatives without charge, I would suggest that saying that not everyone in Guantanamo is in Al Qaeda is a fair statement.


And what is our motive in wasting valuable cells and intelligence personnel in our most maximum security detention facility on innocents? This isn't some Abu Graib run by retards like that Englund chick. This is the Pelican Bay of the military justice system run by our best intel people. And we are wasting its finite space on innocents why?

Your guess is as good as mine as to why your government would waste resourses, but I doubt that optimising resources came into the equation when dealing with suspects. It seems to me that people were just rounded up wholesale in Afghanistan (many through the dubious process of offering bounties to the Northern Alliance) and shipped straight to guantanamo for interrogation. Once in there, getting out isn't easy, especially when there are no specific allegations against you to fight.
 
2005-05-26 07:01:18 AM  
VideoVader writes: Newsweek says that the first guy incorrectly remembered mentions of concern about the flushing charges, not that they were confirmed as actually having happened.

That's a misdirection. Did the source originally claim that such had happened? According to magazine and writer, yes.

The fact that the source has since changed his story does not indict the original publication.

The other guy didn't even say anything about it.

About the flushing, yes. But, the periscope item had a wider scope than that.

That's when a newspaper is supposed to write, "no comment."

But, he did make comments. Writing "no comment" would be a misrepresentation.

They had no problem saying that about another guy: "A SouthCom spokesman contacted by Isikoff declined to comment on an ongoing investigation..."

But, the second source didn't decline comment. He corrected one aspect of the story while remaining silent on others.

so they should've said that the second source commented on one part but not the others.

That's just ridiculous. Different people often bring different perspectives to bear on an issue. Newspapers do not customarily catalogue each accusation and then list each source's take on each allegation.

Newsweek was definitely wrong to state that multiple sources had confirmed the story when the article went to print.

This is your best argument; but, it's still weak. Newsweek did indeed have two sources for the story. They just didn't have two sources for every aspect of the story.

What's upsetting me now is that, unlike Bush's misrepresentations, you're denying that Newsweek's misrepresentations were wrong.

I don't believe they were misrepresentations.
 
2005-05-26 07:01:55 AM  
uclajd:

All Rasul did was grant the district court jurisdiction to hear the case, a procedural decision - it certainly didn't rule on the merits of what Bill Cosby was claiming. It didn't confer any other right other than habeas corpus, and certainly not constitutional protections afforded a citizen (e.g., 5th and 6th Amendments). And I seriously doubt those rights will be conferred in the end by the district court, and in any event certainly not by SCOTUS.


I made no such claim, merely that those held in Guantanamo had the right to prove that they were not enemy combatants.

Anyway you never addressed the fact that torture is illegal independent of the Geneva Convention.
 
2005-05-26 07:01:58 AM  
BillCosby

Stop citing the Geneva Convention. It does not apply.

Besides, hostilities have not ceased.


Joe Don Faker

- George W. Bush
Presidential Debate, Oct 11, 2000


"Terrorists Fly Airliners Into WTC, Both Towers Collapse."
- CNN, September 11, 2001
 
2005-05-26 07:04:57 AM  
equusdc:

Yes, because it prevents millions of people from becoming desperately destitute because their personal retirement plans didn't pan out as cleverly as they had planned.

You're right, Congress is known for their fiscal responsibility.

I must declare that I have succumbed to the physiological limitations of a mere citizen and cannot proceed further with the ideological exchange at hand. I would like to extend my gratitude to the individuals that have pressed on with the civility of the debate, and your efforts and impressions upon my person have been noted. I must retire at this point in time.

(read: G'night Y'all)
 
2005-05-26 07:06:00 AM  
2005-05-26 01:11:44 AM trad16


Noam Chimpsky:


The Democrats were absolutely euphoric about war when they allied with Bin Laden against the Christian Serbs.

Wow, it realy is a religion war for some of you.

Revenge the Crusades!!!



Why should it be ignored that the Serbs are Christian and the side we allied with are Muslim? It's kind of an important piece of information regarding that war.

It was important that the distinction not be drawn so that the American people could accept disinformation such as "The Serbs are burning down churches" that the Democrat/Al Qaeda alliance was using as a reason to go to war.

 
2005-05-26 07:06:17 AM  
uclajd

Nor was Afghanistan recognized as United States territory. You seem to think that the fairly voluminous treaties about conduct in war apply only between uniformed soldiers of opposing member-states of the United Nations. Suffice it to say, your UCLA JD clearly hasn't covered international law to any great depth... or put more bluntly, you are either playing the fool or you are one.
 
2005-05-26 07:13:30 AM  
uclajd writes: it certainly didn't rule on the merits of what Bill Cosby was claiming.

Bill Cosby
claimed, essentially, that alien prisoners may use the courts of the United States to challenge their detentions. He was right.
 
2005-05-26 07:16:22 AM  
eraser8

...and he was right because of one of the oldest laws on our books: the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, the name of which should be pretty self explanatory.
 
2005-05-26 07:35:38 AM  
This whole thread is an example of what Bush spoke of.
 
2005-05-26 07:37:12 AM  
The most amazing thing about this thread is that, from my quick reading of it, only Noam Chimpsky seems to have understood the President's comment correctly. While the syntax is typically clumsy, his meaning is clear. The "propaganda" to which the President was referring was the propaganda of his opponents.
 
2005-05-26 07:40:27 AM  
HappyDaddy

If Bush had the ability to express a thought clearly.....

nevermind.
 
2005-05-26 07:45:51 AM  
Wow... I think I'm done reading or ever commenting on fark threads again. I guess I'm just not worthy b/c I don't feel the need to pony up 5 dollars or whatever the total fark membership costs are now a days. But reading through the first 50 or so posts by tfarkers makes me *not* want to come here at all. It's like a highschool clique you can buy your way into, and then kid yourself into thinking that your banter/posting is wittier.

/peace out
//fark you, fark you, fark you, you're cool, fark you
 
Displayed 50 of 692 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report