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.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2657
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7528 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last
 
  2007-03-14 12:28:59 PM
piaddic120:If clinton had blown up bin laden when he had a chance we would not be in Irag Afghanistan

Chances are the terrorist would not have attacked us on 9-11...but we can't be sure of this but it is possible that with out a leader like bin laden they wouldn't be as ballsy as they are and we would not be in a war against terror!
 
  2007-03-14 05:02:52 PM
blogwiz

show me one terrorist we have tortured....PLEASE!

There are a number of ways I can answer this.

First of all, lets agree that torture means treatment outside the boundaries of the Geneva Conventions. The United States and every other civilized nation in the world signed and agreed to this treaty and we model our own army field manual off of its guidelines so I think this is a fair definition.

Second, lets also agree that the techniques utilized at Guantanamo Bay have been authorized by the President to go outside the bounds of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore many of these techniques can be rightfully considered torture.

With that said, we can agree that most if not all of the detainees at Guantanamo likely have suffered treatment that would amount to torture. If you disagree with any of this, do some research on it. Google it. Learn about it. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. I'm perfectly willing to prove both of the above points with source material if you can show me you've done some research and that I'm not wasting my time arguing with you.

With that said, I can address your request to "show you terrorists who have been tortured." I can do one better: I can show you people, some as young as 14, who have been tortured at Guantanamo. People, not terrorists, because many (most) of the past and present detainees at Guantanamo have not been proven to be terrorists. They are suspects. They have not been defined as terrorists by any court, no one has brought any charges against them, and we (our government) has been actively trying to STOP them from challenging their detentions. A lengthy list of who these people are can be found here (pops).


Also these guy's in gitmo shouldn't be covered by our constitutional rights they are not americans

Aliens residing in our country are protected by our rights. Residents, tourists, lots of people who are not citizens are afforded the rights of our constitution. Aside from the moral dillema you seem to have affording basic human rights to people regardless of what country they were born in, our government and courts have already affirmatively addressed this question. So, with that said, since the courts have considered Guantanamo Bay to be within the jurisdiction of the United States, the argument that we should therefore afford them the rights we afford other aliens within our jurisdiction shouldn't be problematic.

they do not want to be american and they want america to be wiped of the face of the earth

No one has proved they want anything. That's the problem. These people are being detained and abused and are having their most basic liberty taken away by our government without any question or method of challenging this authority. This should disgust and scare you.

it only unconstitutional if it was our people in those jail cells down there and we were doing it do our own people!

We have done it to our own people. We held two of our citizens as enemy combatants, Padilla and Hamdi, (although not at Guantanamo) and refused to afford them the opportunity for habeas corpus. Several years after they were originally detained, one of them (Padilla) is finally being tried in criminal court (and interestingly NONE of the original charges we brought against him as an enemy combatant surfaced in his grand jury indictment, funny that) and we negotiated the release of Hamdi without even trying him. So this guy, Hamdi, who we said was so dangerous that affording him an attorney and an opportunity in court was a danger to our national security, was just released to Saudi Arabia contingent on him never returning to America. Yeah, that sure should take care of him!

In summation, I urge you to rethink your position. Consider why we are the target of such hatred and consider the best way to solve this problem. Does it involve simply backing away and capitulating? Of course not. No one is saying that's what we should do. But we cannot just "fight" everything like its some sort of war. I believe the first step in defeating terrorism (which you will never get rid of, by the way) is eliminating the primary reasons that drive young, impressionable men and women to sacrifice their lives against us. Showing that we, as a country and a people, respect the basic human rights of our fellow human beings is a good step. There was a time in the history of the world when the United States was a unique country that gave people hope and was in general an example to the world in progressive thinking and government. Let's see if we can get back to something resembling that standard.
 
  2007-03-15 01:37:36 PM
blogwiz: THEY ATTACKED US and we warned the world that anyone who supports the asshole terrorist in anyway were our enemies and would be dealt with!

That's right, we warned the world that those terrorists, made up of elements put together by individuals who used to work for us in the CIA back in the 80s, were bad and we were good and anyone trying to harbor them, or anyone else (kind of like a Monty Python sketch) would be our enemies to be dealt with.

Please pardon the rest of the world for having their doubts. Yes, I know much of the civilized world felt the grief and remorse enough to let us attack Afghanistan and fail to catch Bin Laden.

All sarcasm aside: this isn't World War II. This conflict came about as a reaction to the rather imperialist meddling of the US in the past 50 years. I agree that the concern is probably worse than what was at stake in 1943, because the "enemy" is even more obscured. To me, the enemy is ignorance, and the stubbornness of believing that violence is going to solve anything. It's going to wipe us out this time, and we'll be fighting WWIV with sticks and stones.

*buys Cleveland-Steamer a brew*
 
  2007-03-15 05:01:29 PM
I don't remember us attacking the muslim world any time in the last 50 years...I also don't remember america ever trying to repress any nation in the middle east in the last 50 years but I do remember when russia tried its best to go in and take Afghanistan that we was one of the only countries that helped a young bin laden and his rebels run russia out and then he turns around and attacks us....can anyone tell me why can anyone give me just one good reason why he and his terrorist groups would attack us because I don't see us being infatals as being a good reason! Did we keep them from being a super power in their on right did we keep their people from thrieving or what is it the fact that we allow our people to be free and our women to run their own lives is this the threat that we are to their way of live is it they are affraid that their people will see the way we live our lives and want this for themselves is this the threat that we are?
 
  2007-03-16 02:47:27 PM
blogwiz
That's funny... I remember the Saudis of Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Mohammad Reza Shah of Iran, the Mujahadeen (Taliban) of Afghanistan.

The list goes on for non-Muslim countries as well: Chiang Kai-Shek of Formosa (now Taiwan) and Augusto Pinochet.

All of whom were (are) not very nice to the countries they controlled. They all had US backing at one point or even until the end.

Yeah, we beat the Russkies. At what cost? Was 9/11, thousands of Americans and Iraqis dead, and the continuing explosion of radical extremists worth it? I don't think so.

William J. Lederer foresaw problems with backing people worse than the Commies... he wrote an excellent book about this type of foreign policy called "A Nation of Sheep." He not only talks about the monsters we've helped to power, but he also talks about how the news media didn't report it and how the American public was very ignorant of what was really going on. It was written in late 1960.
 
  2007-03-17 04:45:09 PM
Pabst Blue Ribbon? You cheap bastard! ;)

/actually like PBR
 
  2007-03-17 07:42:47 PM
1 mission dubya accomplished
www.bartcop.com
 
  2007-03-18 06:09:31 AM
 
  2007-03-18 04:23:13 PM
whidbey [TotalFark]

That's right, we warned the world that those terrorists, made up of elements put together by individuals who used to work for us in the CIA back in the 80s, were bad and we were good and anyone trying to harbor them, or anyone else (kind of like a Monty Python sketch) would be our enemies to be dealt with.

Please pardon the rest of the world for having their doubts. Yes, I know much of the civilized world felt the grief and remorse enough to let us attack Afghanistan and fail to catch Bin Laden.

All sarcasm aside: this isn't World War II. This conflict came about as a reaction to the rather imperialist meddling of the US in the past 50 years. I agree that the concern is probably worse than what was at stake in 1943, because the "enemy" is even more obscured. To me, the enemy is ignorance, and the stubbornness of believing that violence is going to solve anything. It's going to wipe us out this time, and we'll be fighting WWIV with sticks and stones.


Wow, that's dark... I think someone needs a hug.

/it's probably me.
 
  2007-03-18 10:02:14 PM
Sorry Howie...

But neither Cheney nor Bush are going to be impeached of anything that they have done.

Nor should they.....
 
  2007-03-18 10:35:46 PM
Curious.....

In what ways does the Geneva Convention allow us to question suspected terrorists?

IF we captured a terrorist that said there was a NUKE headed to a large US city in a truck what if anything could we do to try to get him to tell us what he knows?

Or...

Can we only get him a lawyer and read him his "rights"???
 
  2007-03-20 11:22:12 PM
dottedmint good one....I think some here think we should only get them a lawyer! I aslo agree that bush is not and should not be impeached!

I just read the Geneva convention and Cleveland-Steamer here is something you should read because in my opinion terrorist are not covered by in the geneva convention in any way!

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:(it says each party shall be bound not just the USA)

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(does that mean they can cut off our heads but we can't cut off theirs...I don't think so!)

(b) Taking of hostages; (oh like they do?)

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(oh like showing videos of hostages on the net?)

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(oh hell they must of held court for our guys before cutting off their heads right?)

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
(not shot dead were they lay?)

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
(when did they follow the geneva convention in any way?)

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict

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. (doesn't cover terrorist)

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; (doesn't cover terrorist)

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (where is their signs or uniforms)

(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(They don't walk down the street with their guns they lay in wait for us!)

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (does that mean cutting off heads? They do not follow the geneva convention!)

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (terrorist recogniize what government)

So by the geneva convention its self they are not covered by the rights of the geneva convention! The terrorist are not in anyway an army that is covered by the rules of war covered in the geneva convention at this time.....they do not in any way follow the rules set down by the geneva convention and that allows any army fighting them off the hook when it comes to the geneva convention
 
  2007-03-21 12:54:50 AM
TheRaven77 Your right we did back some bad guys in our time but on the other hand it could of been worse if we didn't who is to say who would have been in charge maybe someone even worse than the people you mentioned
Chiang Kai-Shek was against communism which we was all so against and he modernized the economy of taiwan

Saddam was backed by many others as well not just us, France became the major source of Iraq's high-tech weaponry, in no small part to protect its financial stake in that country. The Soviet Union was Iraq's largest weapon's supplier, while jockeying for influence in both Irag and Irans capitals. Israel provided arms to Iran, hoping to bleed the combatants of the Irag Iran war by prolonging the war. And at least ten nations sold arms to both of the warring sides.

The list of countries engaging in despicable behavior, however, would be incomplete without the United States. The U.S. objective was not profits from the arms trade, but the much more significant aim of controlling to the greatest extent possible the region's oil resources so we can't be held at blame for this alone!

the Mujahadeen (Taliban) of Afghanistan...we tried to keep afghanistan from being taken over by russia but who knew at that time that they along with bin laden would turn around and bite the hand that helped them!
So internation policy is not a perfect science in fact its more a quessing game but if we do nothing some of the sores fester and explode anyway so its best to try and keep it to a minimum...also a lot of the time the world turns to us to be the worlds police and then crys when it doesn't turn out the way they wanted it to!
 
  2007-03-21 03:02:26 AM
blogwiz:

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. (doesn't cover terrorist)

See, that's the problem. Of course it does, and the US is refusing to acknowledge this.

And even more interesting, if this is some kind of technical "illegality," then Bush's administration is behaving even more arrogantly in not recognizing basic rights because they don't consider "enemy combatants" prisoners of war.

Even one more strike against the Iraq conflict as being illegal, and dishonest to boot.

.also a lot of the time the world turns to us to be the worlds police and then crys when it doesn't turn out the way they wanted it to!

I'm thinking most of the world is regretting this misplaced faith. You're right, it doesn't turn out they way "they" wanted it to. And that goes for all parties involved.

we did back some bad guys in our time but on the other hand it could of been worse if we didn't who is to say who would have been in charge maybe someone even worse than the people you mentioned

And I say such secretive second-guessing is what's gotten us where we are today. Not to mention that our hypocrisy in pretending to be a nation founded on freedom and patriotism and yet would allow elements of our government to stage very unpleasant events like the 1953 coup against Mossadeq, over oil. That's a surprise.

But I'll give you credit: at least you recognize that the US has done some very bad things, decisions that only the most heartless pragmatist could appreciate, really.

We don't have to do business this way--based on fear, second-guessing, the addiction to war and the nasty petrol goose grease that literally fuels it.
 
  2007-03-21 06:45:21 AM
Whidbey you are ignoring the next part....

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;


Terrorists typically do not wear any uniform. Instead they try to look like innocent civilians.

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

Terrorists do not carry their arms openly. They hide their weapons.

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Intentionally targetting innocent civilians by suicide bombings kinda goes against "the laws and customs of war" not to mention beheadings and mutilations.
 
  2007-03-21 01:50:14 PM
Whatever. Put up or shut up.

If they're really "terrorists", prove it and execute the motherfarkers.

If they're really innocent civilians who got ratted out by a business rival (for example) then let them go.

Of course, after holding someone innocent against their will for four years, we probably will have created the terrorist we were trying to stop in the first place
 
  2007-03-21 03:08:02 PM
Calmamity: If they're really "terrorists", prove it and execute the motherfarkers.

But see, that's the rub. Under the Bush administration, anyone could be labeled a terrorist. Practically for any reason.

dottedmint: Terrorists typically do not wear any uniform. Instead they try to look like innocent civilians.

Then, as I said, this war is even more illegal than before if the conditions don't even meet the definitions of war.

We ignored our own protocols for declaring war, ignored international law, and arrogantly dismiss hard-won standards like the Geneva Convention because they don't technically suit us.

And of COURSE, the Bush administration carefully considered these technicalities before invading, now didn't they?

Considered and IGNORED it, I'm thinking.

But thanks for giving me more ammunition to use against these war criminals.

And unless there is some kind of citizen outcry, Bush nor Cheney will see no impeachment, simply because most of the members of Congress would also have to impeach themselves, for going along with the "war" and having statements in public record to that effect.

Right now, I don't weep for America, I'd like to punch it in the balls.
 
  2007-03-21 08:36:47 PM
dottedmint: Terrorists typically do not wear any uniform. Instead they try to look like innocent civilians.

===========================================================

whidbey Then, as I said, this war is even more illegal than before if the conditions don't even meet the definitions of war.

Just because the terrorists do not fit the requirements to be covered by the Geneva Convention does not somehow make this WAR illegal.

We ignored our own protocols for declaring war,

We've been through this before.

The US Constitution does NOT have ANY "protocols" for declaring war.

It does NOT say what a DOW must say.

It does NOT say that a DOW is even needed.

The ONLY thing that it says is that Congress has the authority

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

ignored international law, and arrogantly dismiss hard-won standards like the Geneva Convention because they don't technically suit us.


Since the GC does NOT cover terrorists there is no arrogance in dismissing it.
 
  2007-03-21 09:16:22 PM
dottedmint: Just because the terrorists do not fit the requirements to be covered by the Geneva Convention does not somehow make this WAR illegal.

No, actually it makes the point even more so. We don't have to treat "enemy combatants" with the same humanity as we would treat "prisoners of war" just because they don't conform to our Geneva Standards?

Then we are in the wrong until that legality is met.

Even one more reason why the war is wrong: We don't even believe we have to follow our own rules. That's pathetic.

Since the GC does NOT cover terrorists there is no arrogance in dismissing it.

I completely disagree, and add the Geneva Convention to the list of safeguards Bush has chosen to ignore to satisfy his desperate game.

The US Constitution does NOT have ANY "protocols" for declaring war.

I really don't care, the point is that Congress has the power to declare wars and this power has somehow been taken to mean we can engage in any kind of conflict with little or no political accountability. If we truly believe as a society that force is the absolute last resort in dealing with a difficult political situation, then we owe it to ourselves to make the process for war an arduous and difficult one.

I guess I'm confused as to why you still support this klstrfk given the information you've learned about it, dottedmint: This administration has lied to and betrayed America, and should be punished.
 
  2007-03-21 11:33:36 PM
whidbey No, actually it makes the point even more so. We don't have to treat "enemy combatants" with the same humanity as we would treat "prisoners of war" just because they don't conform to our Geneva Standards?

It is NOT "our Geneva Standards".

We are talking about THE GENEVA CONVENTION and it does NOT protect terrorists as it has been pointed out to you.

Yet you still seem to think that TGC does protect terrorists. Unless it is that you just THINK it should protect terrorists....

whidbey Then we are in the wrong until that legality is met.

In order for the terrorists to be protected by TGC they would need to fulfil the conditions set by TGC

They do NOT meet the conditions set by TGC and so TGC does NOT apply to them.

whidbey I completely disagree, and add the Geneva Convention to the list of safeguards Bush has chosen to ignore to satisfy his desperate game.

I QUOTED specifically what TGC requires in order for someone to be protected by TGC and yet you seem to just ignore what it said.

Just to remind you why terrorists are not protected by TGC I will re-post it for you.

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.


Terrorists do NOT fulfil the conditions set by TGC and are not protected by it.

whidbey I really don't care, the point is that Congress has the power to declare wars and this power has somehow been taken to mean we can engage in any kind of conflict with little or no political accountability. If we truly believe as a society that force is the absolute last resort in dealing with a difficult political situation, then we owe it to ourselves to make the process for war an arduous and difficult one.

There is "political accountability" because Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq.

And this means that when you said...

We ignored our own protocols for declaring war,

.....you were (how should I put this) full of "it" because as I said there are NO "protocols for declaring war".
 
  2007-03-22 12:34:57 AM
dottedmint: We are talking about THE GENEVA CONVENTION and it does NOT protect terrorists as it has been pointed out to you.

Then the Iraq War is 100% illegal without a plan to define enemy combatants with the same legal language as prisoners of war.

Note I refuse to use Bush's convenient word "terrorist." This means nothing, if anything it's used to demean and refuse to acknowledge that we even have an enemy.

As if they're just criminals, not people trying to fight to get the US out of their country. You do know that many of the Iraqi "insurgents" are ordinary citizens whose lives were destroyed by the United States after the invasion?

This does not excuse any of the prohibited behavior described in the Geneva Convention. This merely reinforces the notion that this war is being fought illegally.

There is "political accountability" because Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq.

Which is a disgraceful short-cutting of the Constitution. Wars should be declared, not drawn up on the fly.

you were (how should I put this) full of "it" because as I said there are NO "protocols for declaring war".

The honorable thing for our government to do is stick to the original Constitutional provision, if anything to avoid it.
And what's more, I don't think you're going to hear the last of this, the more that the public sees the BS and calls our government on it. That's right: both parties.

So. You're still happy that our government lied to the American public about a war that really didn't need to happen? And what about how it turned out?

Don't you at least have more critical words than "I'm disappointed in the way Bush has handled this"?

And I'd like to know even more:

Given the information you've learned about this conflict, do you still think we should make the mistake of military intervention in Iran, or for that matter ANY country where we are the dominant military force?
 
  2007-03-22 07:01:14 AM
whidbey Then the Iraq War is 100% illegal without a plan to define enemy combatants with the same legal language as prisoners of war.

Just because you keep repeating the same thing over does not make it true.

Terrorists are NOT covered by TGC.

It has been quoted to you twice so far.

IF enemy combatants do not fit the standards set by TGC then THEY ARE NOT PROTECTED by TGC either.

whidbey This does not excuse any of the prohibited behavior described in the Geneva Convention. This merely reinforces the notion that this war is being fought illegally.

I'm not saying that we should use behaviors described in TGC. I'm only saying that people who do NOT fit the standards set by TGC are NOT protected by TGC.

whidbey Which is a disgraceful short-cutting of the Constitution. Wars should be declared, not drawn up on the fly.

The honorable thing for our government to do is stick to the original Constitutional provision, if anything to avoid it.


You can have that OPINION but as I have pointed out to you many times already The US Constitution does NOT have any "protocols for declaring war".

Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.

IF they wish to end this war the ONLY option that they have is to end funding for the war.
 
  2007-03-22 05:16:47 PM
Well, dottedmint, you can keep firing back your facts, frankly I've yet to see you defend this illegal war on moral grounds.

I would really like to understand why you feel it's all right for this government to skirt protocols spelled out in the Constitution, why you continue to defend Bush's outright lie to the American people that the war was/is justified, and finally why you are so comforted by the fact that we've found a way to ignore an international human rights mandate because we believe we aren't really fighting an enemy.

Yes, the Bush administration is crafty enough to peruse every possible angle on how to do their bidding without the Constitution, the UN and the Geneva Convention, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell me that they have even a shred of moral conscience, as they have undone the hard work of generations who fought to have world representation for all nations, guaranteed humane treatment of prisoners during war, and freedom from tyranny in government.
 
  2007-03-22 09:39:17 PM
blogwiz

I just read the Geneva convention and Cleveland-Steamer here is something you should read because in my opinion terrorist are not covered by in the geneva convention in any way!

I haven't read all of them, because there are four Geneva Conventions, all of them covering different types of combatants or civilians. It's incorrect to talk about a single "Geneva Convention" like it's one thing. They were ratified individually over a period of time which started after WWI and ended after WWII, I think.

Terrorists come under the 4th Geneva Convention, which was ratified a long time after the first geneva convention. The 4th is a "catch-all" document. You are referring to the 2nd or the 1st(?) I believe. I'm hedging myself all over the place because I am on vacation and don't want to bother looking this stuff up. It will seriously hamper the amazing Axis and Allies battle I am having with my brother right now. (Yeah we're nerds).

So anyways, the 4th geneva convention covers civilians (and terrorists, since this is a "war on terror" remember?) and all those who don't fall under the other geneva conventions which cover national army regulars. I think the third one covers chemical weapons or something. Like I said, too lazy to look up, but I know enough to know you're wrong.

dottedmint

Same thing I said to blogwiz. The 4th article of the Geneva conventions apply. There is not one Geneva Convention. Also, the Supreme Court said they applied in Rasul v. Bush (and Hamdan v Rumsfeld I believe).

The whole "terrorists aren't army regulars" argument doesn't work, sorry.

I have pointed out to you many times already The US Constitution does NOT have any "protocols for declaring war".

What does this mean? I'm not trying to be smarmy I actually just haven't been following along with your conversation, so maybe this has a more definitive meaning, because Art I sec 8 states congress has the power to declare war. You are right that there is kind of a question as to how to end the war. There are a number of ways they can try, however, and the Supreme Court has stated that the president doesn't get a blank check during war time. Right now is an interesting time from a legal perspective as to the properly delineated powers between congress and the president during war time, as it is one of the more gray areas of constitutional law. Personally, I think that when the majority of the people and the majority of congress think this was a big mistake, the executive should do their duty as the leaders of a democratic nation and try to respond to the wishes of the people. Wait, what am I saying! This is the Bush administration, silly me...
 
  2007-03-23 10:46:29 AM
On a slightly different subject: Why is the President so petrified of the idea that his staff members might have to tell the truth to Congress and the American people?

Oh, and that "fishing expedition" line by the President was funny in so-sad-you-have-to-laugh kind of way. Why? Because it's the same line Nixon used.

Who's the new White House counsel? Fred Fielding.

The same Fred Fielding who was deputy counsel to Nixon.

Hi-larious.
 
  2007-03-24 04:00:56 PM
More signature Bush Arrogance™.

The bottom line to him is that he can have any US prosecutor fired without having to give any sort of reason--legally, at that.

It's just whether Congress wants to go to battle with serious charges like charging the White House with contempt for instructing staff to ignore the subpoenas, or full-blown obstruction of justice.

There was definitely some dirty pool in the firings. It's sh*tty political muckery, something that disgusts me about both parties.

But Bush is such an arrogant asshole who hides behind his lawyers. That's no way to do business.
 
  2007-03-24 07:19:11 PM
whidbey Note I refuse to use Bush's convenient word "terrorist." This means nothing, if anything it's used to demean and refuse to acknowledge that we even have an enemy.

Definition for Terrorist One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals. Just google it and you'll find even more definitions of terrorist and they are just as ugly!

Cleveland-Steamer I haven't read all of them, because there are four Geneva Conventions, all of them covering different types of combatants or civilians. It's incorrect to talk about a single "Geneva Convention" like it's one thing. They were ratified individually over a period of time which started after WWI and ended after WWII, I think

The Geneva Conventions are comprised of four separate conventions that govern the conduct of military forces during armed conflict. The current form of these important international laws emerged in the aftermath of World War II, but they are an extension of the laws governing warfare that emerged throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. These four separate conventions contain laws that govern: 1) care of sick and wounded members of the "armed forces" on the battlefield; 2) care of sick and wounded members of the "armed forces" at sea; 3) the treatment of prisoners of war; and 4) the protection of "civilian persons in wartime". The Geneva Conventions are one group of international laws that set limits on the military tactics that a country may employ during armed conflict
I take this to mean that both parties in a conflict are subject to these rules and since we were talking about our treatment of the terrorist I went with #3 the treatment of prisoners....which from what the red cross has writen we give our prisoners three meals a day and we have meet their dietary needs to the fullist we have even allowed them to go do their prayer thing they have to do everyday and have given everyone of them a coren or how ever you spell it....but I read everyday how they capture and mistreat and behead our soldiers and marines yet you have the balls to biatch about they are being mistreated and how your government is wrong....well let me tell you something our government is a government of the people by the people for the people asshole so if you vote you are part of the problem and if you don't vote then shut the fark up because you don't have a farking thing to biatch about!

whidbey I really don't care, the point is that Congress has the power to declare wars and this power has somehow been taken to mean we can engage in any kind of conflict with little or no political accountability. If we truly believe as a society that force is the absolute last resort in dealing with a difficult political situation, then we owe it to ourselves to make the process for war an arduous and difficult one.

We and many around the world did try everything in our power to avoid going in to Irag....the world had the UN set 16 sanctions against saddam and the UN sent in weapon inspectors to try to keep this guy inline but he broke every sanction along with some help from some corrupt people from france, germany and russia who where getting paid under the table and he kept playing games so the world came to believe he may have or be close to having WMD's and hell we even gave him a chance to keep this from happening and all he had to do was leave....and I believe some country offered to let him come and live a safe life but he so fark you and gave of no other choice but to back up our words and I know your going to say the un didn't want us to go in there but it was only the one that were getting money from saddam that said no everyone else backed us in going in to Irag including the American people because if they really didn't want us to go in and get saddam then all they had to do was call their congressman and say so because we are a government of the people by the people and for the people!
 
  2007-03-24 08:45:03 PM
blogwiz: but I read everyday how they capture and mistreat and behead our soldiers and marines yet you have the balls to biatch about they are being mistreated and how your government is wrong...

Sorry, but this eye for an eye crap isn't going to fly.

That sort of behavior is not justified, even if in some twisted way you might believe it is necessary to win a war.

And no, I didn't vote for this government. I did make the mistake of giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding Iraq and it's all been a lie, and the clever lawyering of the Bush administration makes it respectable to torture "enemy combatants" and look the other way, it turns out too.

I submit that just as "terrorists" are not considered legitimate as enemy, then our actions are just as illegitimate. We are just as much to blame for breaking down the rules of war as any "terrorist."

We and many around the world did try everything in our power to avoid going in to Irag

With all due respect, don't give me that. We all know the story, and in the end, for whatever reason, the rest of the world decided that invading was not going to be the order of the day--except the United States.

he broke every sanction along with some help from some corrupt people from france, germany and russia who where getting paid under the table and he kept playing games

Well, then, you see the real problem. It's not some madman from Iraq, it's corruption within the ranks of the members of the international community. And I would rather have seen the effort put into convincing necessary parties than having to witness this country go it alone. We are not the World Police, no matter what cynical designation is floating around, we created the UN to have a world representative body to decide what to do about world matters. Our rogue action only undermined that trust even more, and sank our country's world image even farther, if that can be imagined.

if they really didn't want us to go in and get saddam then all they had to do was call their congressman and say so because we are a government of the people by the people and for the people!

But that doesn't let anyone off the hook, sorry. I'm not one of those people who gloat about how stupid this country is, but the people are waking up and realizing just how badly they're being screwed over by the very people they trusted. Our ignorance has cost us, but it doesn't excuse the behavior of warmongering assholes who have managed to find ways to ignore both the Constitution and international law.
 
  2007-03-25 04:42:41 AM
blogwiz

I went with #3 the treatment of prisoners.

It doesn't matter what you "went with" it matters what our courts went with, and our courts have said the Geneva Conventions apply to detainees in the war on terror, including those at Guantanamo. Your "opinion" about which convention to apply is irrelevant. Nice try pretending you actually knew there were 4 conventions by the way.

which from what the red cross has writen we give our prisoners three meals a day and we have meet their dietary needs to the fullist we have even allowed them to go do their prayer thing they have to do everyday and have given everyone of them a coren or how ever you spell it....but I read everyday how they capture and mistreat and behead our soldiers and marines

First: we are not following Hammurabi's ancient code of laws here. This is 2007. I'd like to think we've come a bit farther than that by now. Second: you are already condemning these detainees. Over half of the total prisoners detained at Guantanamo collectively over the past five years were not even alleged to be enemy combatants. A Seton Hall study (pops) actually found that out of 517 detainees, only 8% were alleged to be members of al-qaeda. EIGHT PERCENT. So, these are "suspects" and weak ones at that. Third: you are ignoring the voluminous evidence of torture and inhumane treatment that occurred (is occurring?) at Guantanamo. (Not just in Guantanamo by the way.) If you find these guys guilty in a fair trial, fine, put them in a cell and throw away the key. But these people weren't even afforded the right to make their captors prove they needed to be jailed. Does that seem fair?


yet you have the balls to biatch about they are being mistreated and how your government is wrong

I've got balls! I like balls.

well let me tell you something our government is a government of the people by the people for the people asshole so if you vote you are part of the problem and if you don't vote then shut the fark up because you don't have a farking thing to biatch about!

Whoa calm down there ace. I voted against Bush, twice. As for "not having anything to biatch about," the least me or any other American can do is "biatch" about their government when they think it is behaving badly. That's my right, and IMHO it's my duty. Stay alert to the news. Keep an eye on your government. Keep them honest. Biatch and complain and take action when they do something you don't like. That's democracy. If you want to live somewhere where people like me are forced to shut up, there's this place called Saudi Arabia you should really check out.

coren or however you spell it

Yeah it's K-o-r-a-n. Koran. You're welcome.
 
  2007-03-25 03:45:40 PM
According to the rules of land warfare, iregular combatants spys and sabatours can be shot after a military trial and the detail furnished to the world court in the Hauge afte hostilities end, un less you are in a uniform from a country that has signed the geniva accords you are shiat out of luck we can do what we like to you, if you are an american caught bearing arms aganst us the same rules apply as to spys.

Do have a nice day

:-{)
 
  2007-03-25 09:00:34 PM
I don't think I ever got this answered...

In what ways does the Geneva Convention allow us to question suspected terrorists?

IF we captured a terrorist that said there was a NUKE headed to a large US city in a truck what if anything could we do to try to get him to tell us what he knows?

Or...

Can we only get him a lawyer and read him his "rights"???
 
  2007-03-25 10:03:07 PM
<b>Cleveland-Steamer</b> only 8% were alleged to be members of al-qaeda.

And you believe al-qaeda is the only terrorist on the planet, the only people who are using terror agianst the world?
Where did seton hall get these numbers from the detainee's well hell I wonder how many people in prison are innocent because if you ask them they are all innocent so I can write a report saying that in the USA that there is at least 95% of the people who are arrested today that are innocent and being held for doing nothing.....now I know you'll say that at least they will get a trial and your right but only after there is a through investigation and evidence is gathered....but unlike a crime how do you gather evidence against these people do you go out and ask the people did you see anything or do you get the gun they were holding in their hands and test the bullets that you pull from all the dead to see if it matches their gun....please tell me how are we are to give these people a fair trial, please tell me how in the world are we to prove they are terrorist beyond a shadow of a daught because thats what all these bleeding hearts say we should do or we should let them go, So tell me is it your opinion that we should just let all these people go free
Did that Seton hall report say anything about detainees that would say anything to hide who and what they really are....have you read about the detainee's that we have released because they said they were innocent civilians and then they went back to the war against us and told the media how they fooled us and made fools of us and of the world because the people of the world has taken the side of the detainee's....now We could have said we'll accept no risks and refuse to release anyone. But we've regarded that option as not humane, and not practical, and one that makes the U.S. government appear unreasonable. Maybe you should read this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html then tell me that we should just let these detainee's go free!

<b>Cleveland-Steamer</b> Whoa calm down there ace. I voted against Bush, twice. As for "not having anything to biatch about," the least me or any other American can do is "biatch" about their government when they think it is behaving badly.

Well the majority of the people voted for bush and the system is majority rules and if you don't like something then you tell your congressmen and senators and hope that there is enough people out there that agree with you but it seems to me that they don't or we would have been out of irag by now so just wait for the next election and you'll get what you want "bush gone"

<b>whidbey</b> We all know the story, and in the end, for whatever reason, the rest of the world decided that invading was not going to be the order of the day--except the United States.

The United States supplied the majority of the invading forces. Supporters of the invasion included a coalition force of more than 40 countries, and Kurds in northern Iraq. So you see agian you are wrong it was not just America who thought this was the right thing to do there was more than 40 countries who thought we should take saddam down....the ones that did not want us to take him out was the people that was lining their pockets with his oil money the ones that was allowing him to get around all those sanctions that the world put on him to keep him inline so are we to listen to those people when it comes to anything....maybe you should go live in france, germany, russia or even china since they think they way you do and since you don't like the way your government does things.....OH I forgot your not a part of the government because you don't vote maybe if you had voted there would have been enough congressmen in office with the same views as you and <b>Cleveland-Steamer</b> and we would never have went in to irag!
 
  2007-03-25 10:28:27 PM
blogwiz: So you see agian you are wrong it was not just America who thought this was the right thing to do there was more than 40 countries who thought we should take saddam down

No, actually, I'm not incorrect. The United States went off and did this operation in spite of the "no" vote.

We created the UN for a good reason, and it shows our contempt for the organization's purpose when we dismiss it when it's convenient.

.the ones that did not want us to take him out was the people that was lining their pockets with his oil money

And instead of cowboying it over to Iraq, this issue should have been addressed even if it took years for a breakthrough.

maybe you should go live in france, germany, russia or even china since they think they way you do and since you don't like the way your government does things

Maybe I'll just stay right here and continue do my part to call out warmongers who lie to their citizenry to invade a sovereign nation that was no threat to us, thanks...:)

OH I forgot your not a part of the government because you don't vote

No, you misread me. I voted--against the Bush administration. Both times.

dottedmint: IF we captured a terrorist that said there was a NUKE headed to a large US city in a truck what if anything could we do to try to get him to tell us what he knows?

I don't know personally, but if it came out later that human rights protocols were thrown out the window while interrogating him, you should be outraged.
 
  2007-03-25 10:56:55 PM
Calmamity If they're really "terrorists", prove it and execute the motherfarkers

Why don't you and the rest of the bleeding hearts prove they are not Terrorist.....why because you can't because its not like proveing that some person robbed a store down the street even in past wars it was almost impossible to prove that some enemy committed war crimes, sure sometimes the world got lucky and brought the bad guys to justice but very rarely was it possible and terrorist or not in what war in the worlds past did anyone let captured POW's or enemy combatants go while the war was still going on, never because it just is not done because that would only prolong any war including this war against terror....So all these bleeding hearts calling for us to let these people go is just crazy and seems to me that all they want is for the war on terror to go on forever...I mean we go in to a battle capture the enemy who are trying to kill us and our friends only to turn around and let them go so they can go back to their friends to take up arms agianst us agian OK were does that make any sense at all were does the cycle end by doing it your way, it doesn't at least if we take them off the battle field and put them in a cage and keep them there and then show the youth which is the future that we will stand beside them and allow them the freedoms that humanity deserves and not allow fear mongers like saddam and bin ladden and others to run their lives through fear then its just possible someday that they will grow to see the world differently than the terrorist of today do.....but if we just up and walk away from the people of irag you know the millions that came out to vote (even though they could be killed by the terrorist) because they wanted a better life a life that wasn't run by fear then what are we telling the youth of irag and what do you think they will think about america then...how much will they hate us when they grow up and how many of them will come to blow up another building full of people odds are a bunch so stop crying for the enemy and cry for the children of the future if we don't do everything in our power to change the future for the children so they don't have to live in fear that some fanatic out there is going to blow them up!

Dispatchergod According to the rules of land warfare, iregular combatants spys and sabatours can be shot after a military trial and the detail furnished to the world court in the Hauge afte hostilities end, un less you are in a uniform from a country that has signed the geniva accords you are shiat out of luck we can do what we like to you, if you are an american caught bearing arms aganst us the same rules apply as to spys.

So true! Have a beer on me!
 
  2007-03-25 11:13:52 PM
dottedmint: IF we captured a terrorist that said there was a NUKE headed to a large US city in a truck what if anything could we do to try to get him to tell us what he knows?

Whidbey: I don't know personally, but if it came out later that human rights protocols were thrown out the window while interrogating him, you should be outraged.

I'm curious what you consider "human rights protocols".

Could we yell at him?

Could we use bright lights on him?

Could we scare him?

Could we threaten him?

Could we use drugs on him?

Could we force him to listen to rap music for 72 hours without letting him sleep?

Could we shake him strongly?

Obviously things could get much worse from here and I don't think I need to get into specifics of what could happen.

However....

IF a NUKE went off in Chicago and it was found out that we had someone in custody that KNEW it was going to happen I would be more outraged if it was learned that this person was read his "rights" and had a lawyer assigned to him.

But again in any case I'm curious what the Geneva Convention says we can do to try to get info from this person.

Can we do anything?
 
  2007-03-25 11:27:21 PM
I would be more outraged if it was learned that this person was read his "rights" and had a lawyer assigned to him.

Yeah, because that's just so outrageous--the concept of holding dear our principles even when confronted with a critical scenario.

I'm curious what the Geneva Convention says we can do to try to get info from this person.

So am I. I don't know. But I am concerned that the very foundations of this country and what we've accomplished in international law would be tossed into the fire when it's deemed "necessary."
 
  2007-03-25 11:57:48 PM
whidbey No, actually, I'm not incorrect. The United States went off and did this operation in spite of the "no" vote.

Agian WE DID NOT GO ALONE we had the support of 40 nations and you said "the rest of the world decided that invading was not going to be the order of the day--except the United States" I said you were wrong because we didn't go alone we had the backing of 40 nations!

whidbey We created the UN for a good reason, and it shows our contempt for the organization's purpose when we dismiss it when it's convenient.

Contempt for a system that is corrupt and is being used to line peoples pockets....yes I would say we should have contempt for the UN and because we did bypass them and went in to Irag we have now seen just how deep the corruption goes which would have stayed hidden had we not gone to Irag.....so do you think just maybe the members of the UN didn't want us going in to irag because they knew that they would be uncovered and the rest of the world body would see them as the money hungry farks they really are Including the president of the UN oh and the president of france who argued hard to keep us out and then we found he was taking oil bribes on the side, the german chanceler who got caught with his fingers in the cookie jar and many others so forgive me for not trusting the UN!

whidbey Maybe I'll just stay right here and continue do my part to call out warmongers who lie to their citizenry to invade a sovereign nation that was no threat to us, thanks...:)

Well alot of other countries intel was also wrong because there was alot of countries that believed saddam had WMD's not just ours.....and you call us warmongers and you say a guy who ruled at gun point and was using terror to keep control of his people as "a leader" in sovereign nation that was no threat to us but yet when we went in to Irag we found terrorist training camps in his country, what you think he did know that they were there the guy knew and controled everything in Irag...so if he wasn't going to be a threat to us then who was the terrorist that were training there going to be a threat to can you answer me that because I personally didn't want to wait and see!
 
  2007-03-26 12:44:13 AM
whidbey Yeah, because that's just so outrageous--the concept of holding dear our principles even when confronted with a critical scenario.

What princibles? The principle that a criminal be protected while the innocent be sacificed? So in your thinking a child molester takes a child from his home and hides the child some where and the police catch the child molester we should just let the child die and get the molester a lawyer and not do everything short of torture....In your opinion what is torture?
using bright lights on him is that torture if so WHY?
forceing him to listen to rap music for 72 hours without letting him sleep is that torture and if so WHY?
withholding food until he talks is this torture and agian if so why?
What should we do in your opinion to this molester to keep the child from death and protect these principles at the same time

Because what your saying is just let the terrorist kill millions of our people as long as it protects our principles, well let me ask you what do you think the millions that are going to die because of your ideals would say with they had a vote or voice in what should be done in this situtation!
I have always had the believe we should sacrafice the one to protect the many not the other way around!

whidbey But I am concerned that the very foundations of this country and what we've accomplished in international law would be tossed into the fire when it's deemed "necessary."

So we should let millions die to protect International law....and I quess our nation should also be wiped from the face of the earth as well to protect international law.....Are you freaking nuts, we should protect the rights of our people first and formost screw one terrorist before we allow our country or any of its people to be harmed by them!
 
  2007-03-26 02:15:24 AM
I truely believe these bleeding hearts, these human rights activist are a big reason that things are becoming they way they are in todays world!
Crime and yes even terrorism would not be out of hand if it was not for them, why you may ask well because the bleeding hearts believe in the rights of the bad guys, I mean think about it the crime rate would not be as high today if we were allowed to punish criminals in america instead of just giving them a time out, but because human right activist cry about inhumane treatment because we don't allow the criminals to have cable tv and we don't allow them out of their cages or if we don't give them the same rights given to the people out there that are following the rules and doing what the world says they should do....but you know if we made criminals uncomfortable and we made the punishments harsh just maybe people would think twice before commiting the crimes they do, let me ask these bleeding hearts in here what rights did these terrorist or the criminals out there give their victims...what death, fear, pain, what do you think those people that were in the twin towers felt while they were waiting for their deaths to come...how humane was the terrorist that committed this horror upon those people and their loved one's while they watched and waited to see if their loved one's made it.....what rights is given to a rape victim by the rapist and how humane is the rapist to his victim while he carries out the horror upon his victim....what rights are given to a muder victim and what humanity is given to the victim while he fears for his or her life just before it is taken by a monster.....what rights are given to a child by a child molester and what kind of humanity is given to this child by his molester while they have their way with the child, I can tell you none what so ever because they do not care about your humanity why because they know that no matter what they do the bleeding hearts of the world will protect them because they know they will not be allowed to suffer in anyway the most their punishment will be is they will be send to their rooms for a time out sure it maybe for 10 or 20 years or maybe even for the rest of their lives but they will have all the comforts of home they will have a bed to sleep in and three meals aday, tv, cable, medical everything they need to live a long life and you know who has to pay for their comfort the rule followers but god forbid that these people should suffer for their crimes in anyway!
I think if the terrorist didn't get treated like a criminal in our system and was made to suffer for their crimes agianst humanity and made to suffer brutaly then maybe those virgins they are promised after they die wouldn't look so good to them!
I think if our system of justice actually made criminals convicted of crimes pay a price for their crimes if they actually had to suffer with no tv, no bed to sleep on and don't let them out of their cages for anything not even to eat (feed them in their cages) and once they have done their time and they are out and working for a living they should pay every penny back for the cost of their time in prison so the cost isn't paid by the people that are doing the right things then just maybe time in prison would be something criminals would be afriad of so all you bleeding heart human rights assholes should see these people the way they truely are BRUTAL ANIMALS that do not deserve the rights until they are willing to give them!
 
  2007-03-26 03:49:05 AM
blogwiz: I said you were wrong because we didn't go alone we had the backing of 40 nations!

Which means nothing if the whole doesn't agree, that was my point. Again, you forget there was a reason for a vote.

What should we do in your opinion to this molester to keep the child from death and protect these principles at the same time

The principle that a criminal be protected while the innocent be sacificed?


Stop being dramatic. There is a concept called "innocent until proven guilty." I suggest you read up on it some time...:)

well let me ask you what do you think the millions that are going to die because of your ideals would say with they had a vote or voice in what should be done in this situtation!

Again, we set our principles up to be the law of the land. I certainly hope you aren't thinking of making exceptions here in America, too.

I have always had the believe we should sacrafice the one to protect the many not the other way around!

Well, that's a nice opinion, but read up on the concept and you'll find that isn't always true, and sometimes it's exactly the opposite. For example, I'm not willing to sacrifice the principles this country was founded for promises of "safety" no matter how many die at the supposed hand of "terror."

when we went in to Irag we found terrorist training camps in his country,

Uh, source? What training camps?

So we should let millions die to protect International law

I'm not going to debate hypotheticals, thanks. There are no millions dying, there are about half a million killed by this administration in Iraq, though.

Are you freaking nuts, we should protect the rights of our people first and formost screw one terrorist before we allow our country or any of its people to be harmed by them!

You're raving. Take a deep breath and remember there's a document called the Constitution. And then take another breath and read it, particularly the Bill of Rights...:)

so forgive me for not trusting the UN!

We set it up, we're stuck with it. And like I said, the task was to get the no votes in the UN to change their minds.

We were WRONG to go off and take justice into our own hands, look what it freakin' got us.

bleeding hearts believe in the rights of the bad guys,

Every single American does, or they are ignoring the Supreme Law of the Land, pal.

I mean think about it the crime rate would not be as high today if we were allowed to punish criminals in america instead of just giving them a time out

Whatever. You are really not making much sense, dude. I'm doing my best here.

because human right activist cry about inhumane treatment because we don't allow the criminals to have cable tv

Source?

but you know if we made criminals uncomfortable and we made the punishments harsh just maybe people would think twice before commiting the crimes they do,

Uh, for most convicts, prison does suck. Are you really that ignorant of the conditions in the penal system?

they do not care about your humanity why because they know that no matter what they do the bleeding hearts of the world will protect them because they know they will not be allowed to suffer

Every man deserves a fair trial. To deny this sinks us down to the level we supposedly despise.

because they know they will not be allowed to suffer in anyway the most their punishment will be is they will be send to their rooms for a time out sure it maybe for 10 or 20 years or maybe even for the rest of their lives but they will have all the comforts of home they will have a bed to sleep in and three meals aday...

Or they get solitary, or the death penalty. Again, you're ranting and raving about things you don't really know about.

criminals would be afriad of so all you bleeding heart human rights assholes should see these people the way they truely are BRUTAL ANIMALS that do not deserve the rights until they are willing to give them!

Ok, I think I've had enough.

You make some interesting points, but I'm not going to dig through another manifesto-like pronouncement of yours, blogwiz. I'll be happy to debate you when you make rational, focused arguments with less of the rage, more of the sage.

Deal? Thanks.
 
  2007-03-26 02:53:34 PM
blogwiz

Please use periods. Your posts are extremely difficult to read.

Seton Hall looked at official government documents, I believe. We have enough trouble letting lawyers talk to detainees, I doubt Seton Hall professors and students were granted access to them.

As for the 10 detainees who were caught fighting for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda after their release, yes that is troubling. I'm not saying these guys are all angels and they're all innocent, I'm saying they need to be afforded SOME basic rights. Obviously affording them NONE and torturing them didn't work either, did it?

As for the rest of your diatribe, I'm just not going to bother anymore. You obviously have some strong moral convictions that criminals need to be executed or tortured or whatever, and that this will solve crime and terrorism because pansy-ass liberals are the root of the world's problems. Whatever.

And what rock do you live under that makes you think the majority agrees with what's happening right now?

dottedmint

Could we yell at him?

Yes

Could we use bright lights on him?

Umm... yes?

Could we scare him?

Depends.

Could we threaten him?

If you mean threaten him with grievous bodily injury or death? Technically no. Practically this always happens.

Could we use drugs on him?
I don't know. If truth serum worked and didn't have awful side effects I don't see why not.

Could we force him to listen to rap music for 72 hours without letting him sleep?

Probably not. That might not sound bad to you, but think about it.

Could we shake him strongly?

Would that do anything?

My little answers here are not that meaningful and might not even be correct, but the original golden rule of the US army field manual was this: if this was being done to you, would you consider it torture. It's like the original "golden rule," do unto others...

The idea behind it seems strange to some, but extensive studies show that more reliable intel is gained when prisoners develop a feeling of trust and dependency on their captors, not by physical or mental torture. Go spy on a NYPD interrogation room. These guys get good info out of criminal suspects all the time, and mostly its within the constitution. Take the classic mutt and jeff routine, the good cop/bad cop scenario. This stuff works. Why can't we do that?

IF a NUKE went off in Chicago and it was found out that we had someone in custody that KNEW it was going to happen I would be more outraged if it was learned that this person was read his "rights" and had a lawyer assigned to him.

Would pulling this guys fingernails off lead to the info you desire? Who is to say he's lying? How would you know? This scenario is ridiculous.

dispatchergod

According to the rules of land warfare, iregular combatants spys and sabatours can be shot after a military trial and the detail furnished to the world court in the Hauge afte hostilities end, un less you are in a uniform from a country that has signed the geniva accords you are shiat out of luck we can do what we like to you, if you are an american caught bearing arms aganst us the same rules apply as to spys.

The reason you're wrong is halfway up the thread.
 
  2007-03-26 03:20:00 PM
whidbey Which means nothing if the whole doesn't agree, that was my point. Again, you forget there was a reason for a vote.

Yes there was a reason for the vote, so the un could back up their vote of "yes" on "Resolution 1441" which stated Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein must accomplish a sequence of tasks over a few months period or almost certainly face "serious consequences" and they failed to follow through and we almost called for another vote but realized that the corrupt aspects in the un was still not going to back us so we decided to go it without their blessing because the UN was unwilling to follow through on their threat of serious consequences which in the eyes of many showed their weakness to the world....so do you still think that the way the un stands today that it has any power in the world community

whidbey Uh, for most convicts, prison does suck. Are you really that ignorant of the conditions in the penal system?

Sending a kid to his room for breaking a parents rules and grounding them for a week sucks for them to but its not harsh punishment, diffently not when they have tv, and stereo and video games to keep them company while in their rooms!

whidbey There is a concept called "innocent until proven guilty"

Yeah well sometimes their is guilty and the whole world knows it but you get off scott free (OJ simpson) and sometimes protecting the guilty allows for the death of the innocent (jessica Lynch buried alive) while we follow the rules to protect the rights of the guilty but what happens to the rights of the innocent in cases like that

whidbey they get solitary, or the death penalty.

Even with the death penalty we have had to make it almost painless because the bleeding hearts cried that the gas chamber was to inhumane and the electric chair is to brutal so now we have to give them a shot that makes them go into a painless sleep never to wake up but the criminals didn't give their victims the same treatment I'm sure!
 
  2007-03-27 03:06:54 PM
>2007-03-26 03:20:00 PM blogwiz

>Even with the death penalty we have had to make it almost >painless because the bleeding hearts cried that the gas >chamber was to inhumane and the electric chair is to brutal >so now we have to give them a shot that makes them go into a >painless sleep never to wake up but the criminals didn't >give their victims the same treatment I'm sure!

Even the most ardent proponents of the death penalty will tell you it is not about retribution.
 
  2007-03-27 04:48:18 PM
blogwiz: the UN was unwilling to follow through on their threat of serious consequences which in the eyes of many showed their weakness to the world

First, sorry that I harshed you out earlier. I think it was the run-on sentences, man...;)

But we can keep dancing around with this. For whatever reason: corruption, apathy, failure to recognize resolutions, the vote to carry out the invasion of Iraq was not resolved by the United Nations. And no, I'm not going to defend this organization again, yes, they have faults, but it's really the hope of the world's survival.

It is up to to the members of the Security Council and others to uncover corruption, and expose possible reasons why nations choose not to vote. We lose our dignity as a nation when we disobey consensus, particular in this instance where the justification to invade was shaky at best.

Yes, Saddam was an asshole and a monster, but hardly worth wasting our resources on without the international community right alongside us.

sometimes protecting the guilty allows for the death of the innocent

Again, in this country we believe in the statement "innocent until proven guilty" which means we also believe in a judicial process where anyone is allowed legal representation and a trial where the matter can be resolved publicly. There are no exceptions, or we are no longer the United States.
 
  2007-03-28 04:51:20 PM
Okay, here's a political question: Why the hell are Beetle Baily and his entire company still in Camp Swampy? Shouldn't they be overseas?

For that matter, why are they still wearing uniforms from 1945?
 
  2007-03-29 01:57:45 AM
Calmamity: Why the hell are Beetle Baily and his entire company still in Camp Swampy? Shouldn't they be overseas?

REMFs

For that matter, why are they still wearing uniforms from 1945?

ok. JAFR REMFs
 
  2007-03-31 05:57:27 PM
Wow... Where'd everyone go?

Any other topic anyone wants to bring up?
 
  2007-04-01 12:30:22 PM
wow - they oughta call this the "people who really like to type a lot forum"
 
  2007-04-01 04:26:46 PM
quickdraw: wow - they oughta call this the "people who really like to type a lot forum"


Well, actually, it tends to be the "forum that moves slow enough that people can take the time to think about what they're saying and really explain themselves", but it's kind of floundering, which is a shame.

Not that I've been particularly helpful.

Hey, I don't have all day, I gotta go for the quick jab.
 
  2007-04-01 05:57:30 PM
Calmamity: but it's kind of floundering, which is a shame.

Aw don't worry. It'll pick up steam as election day approaches.
 
Displayed 50 of 2657 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report