REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Senators want to know -- 'ghost' detainees

POSTED BY: HONEY
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6278
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, July 17, 2004 11:06 PM

HONEY


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=5&u=/usatoday/20
040716/ts_usatoday/senatorswanttoknowmoreonghostdetainees


Senators want to know more on 'ghost' detainees
Fri Jul 16, 6:41 AM ET
By Peter Eisler and Blake Morrison,USA TODAY

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) called Thursday for Congress to examine lingering questions about the abuse of detainees in Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere by U.S. forces, including the practice of keeping secret the whereabouts and identities of some prisoners.

Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., said lawmakers expressed concerns about such "ghost" detainees during a closed briefing Thursday that included a review of reports by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
U.S. officials have acknowledged that the names of some detainees captured by military and intelligence forces during the war on terrorism have not been logged in official records. In some cases, they say, keeping secret the locations or names of detainees has been crucial to gathering intelligence.

But the Red Cross fears that the practice could result in the abuse of detainees and make it impossible to monitor the conditions in which they're held. It has called on U.S. officials to account for any ghost detainees and make them available for interviews about their treatment. Armed Services Committee members say they want more information from the Bush administration on the issue, and others related to the abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

Concerns about ghost detainees also are raised in sworn statements that are among more than 6,000 pages of still-classified documents about misconduct at Abu Ghraib.

The documents, obtained by USA TODAY, indicate that several military officers at Abu Ghraib raised questions about ghost detainees there.
The detainees typically were brought to the prison by CIA (news - web sites) personnel, who would skip the prisoner-registration process, the records say. After a few days of interrogation, the captives would be moved to other, undisclosed locations, according to statements by two Army officers who questioned the practice.

The documents were submitted to the Pentagon (news - web sites) and Congress in April as supplements to a report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on abuse at Abu Ghraib.

A transcript in the report indicates that Army Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, a senior officer at the prison, told investigators that he had pushed for some sort of official documentation of ghost detainees. Military police officers, who were responsible for guarding prisoners at Abu Ghraib, said, "Hey, we can't be responsible for them if they don't exist," Jordan said.

The documents quote Jordan as saying there was a verbal "agreement" between the CIA agents and the military intelligence officer in charge of the prison, Col. Thomas Pappas. Jordan said Pappas once told him to hide ghost detainees before a Red Cross team came to inspect the prison.
On Thursday, Warner's panel was updated about several Defense Department investigations into the abuses. Warner said he learned of new instances of possible mistreatment of detainees. "Each day that comes along, new incidents" are revealed, he said.

Among other questions raised by the supplements to the Taguba report:

How much pressure top White House and Pentagon officials put on military intelligence officers to get information from Iraqi detainees. A sworn statement by the military intelligence officer who oversaw interrogations mentioned a visit by an aide to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites). But Taguba asked for no details of the visit.

Whether a translator and another soldier had sexual intercourse with detainees. Sworn statements suggest both might have raped prisoners. No one has been charged with rape.

"There are some serious crimes here," committee member Lindsey Graham, R-S.C, said this week. "The command culture that led to this has to be addressed."

The documents, which make up the 106 attachments to Taguba's report, include transcripts of dozens of interrogations. They show that Taguba stuck closely to his charge: to investigate whether military police acting as prison guards had been properly taught how to treat prisoners, and whether the guards were supervised properly.

Seven soldiers have been charged with misconduct. Some have said they were told by military intelligence officers to "soften up" prisoners for interrogations.

Besides Taguba's inquiry, the Pentagon has launched five other investigations into abuses at Abu Ghraib, including probes into the role of military intelligence officers and a broader look at U.S. treatment of all detainees in Iraq. The Army also is investigating allegations of prisoner abuse and suspicious prisoner deaths.

An Army inspector general report on the treatment of detainees in Iraq is likely to be completed this month. Another Army probe into the role military intelligence played in abuse at Abu Ghraib is due this summer.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 6:17 AM

HERO


I just finished watching the first two seasons of 24. That show has US intelligence officers and the President murdering and torturing terrorists and conspirators. Those are the good guys and it seems perfectly acceptable for them to do those otherwise bad acts.

If its acceptable in a fictional setting, why is torture and abuse not acceptable in the real world were the stakes are more...real?

In other words...if you could stop 9/11 by torturing a foriegn terrorist and just maybe arranging for the murder of his family in front of him live via satalite, would it be wrong?

I'm just asking the questions, not advocating a particular answer...

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 6:22 AM

KNIBBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
In other words...if you could stop 9/11 by torturing a foriegn terrorist and just maybe arranging for the murder of his family in front of him live via satalite, would it be wrong?



Yes. It would. Sorry you had to ask.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 7:05 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
Yes. It would. Sorry you had to ask.



I'm not sure everyone would agree with you. 5,000 innocent lives versus 1 terrorist in pain seems an unfair trade. Intellectually a fair number of people would die and kill for their country (ie the military and first responders).

Why wait till after they kill us to start?

Also, if the information a terrorist has might save thousands or millions of lives, why not use any means necessary to extract it?

Simply saying that it is wrong is no longer enough. Circumstances require us to reason why. My answer would be to explore our morals and values for an answer to this most moral issue. But if the Clinton-era has taught us anything it is that subjective private morals and values should have no role in government.

Seems to me a nation at war can afford morals and values only so far as they are winning. Thats why our enemies seem to lack such values. Believe me, if we faced daily 9/11 bombings then our values would be abandoned in favor of the effective if immoral response.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 7:22 AM

KNIBBLET


Help me understand your reasoning here.

If we believe we are threatened, we should kidnap the people we believe are threatening us, torture them, murder their families and generally abandon all of our values in order to remove the perceived threat?

And this makes us different from terrorists ... how?

We should abandon international law and the Geneva conventions (designed to protect the fighters of ALL nations) when it suits our purpose?

I'm going to ask what 911 has to do with detainees in Iraq and the deliberate obfuscation being carried on by the minions of the administration. Of course, I'd ask what the *#*&^% invading Iraq has to do with 911, but that has been asked thousands of times before.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 7:36 AM

JADEHAND


Well, I hate these things, but have to say a few things on this point. Whilst I agree with Knibblet that yes it would be wrong, I'd still do it in less than a heartbeat. I'd do it a hundred times. Wrong? yes. Unexceptable? No. Situations like this require a certain "Moral flexability" as they say in Grosse Pointe Blank. And all the people that have a problem with such things missed a valid point made in A Few Good Men, you need people willing to do the things that you're not "up on that wall". No I've never been military, but I'm thankful for Static and everyother man and woman out there trying their best to make us all feel safe enough to get a good nights sleep.
And Torture? come on, they but leases on them and put panties on their heads. Maybe even attached electrodes to their nipples. There are people in this country that would pay for that kind of treatment in the SM community. That's not torture that's introduction to alternative lifestlyes. "free your mind."
sorry, end-o-rant.

Visit WWW.Marillion.Com for a better way to live

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 10:58 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
We should abandon international law and the Geneva conventions (designed to protect the fighters of ALL nations) when it suits our purpose?



What flag do the terrorists fight under? Do they have names, ranks and serial numbers? What is their common identifiable uniform?

The terrorists do not, nor have they ever followed the edicts of the Geneva Convention (which I might add was written when there were traditional/conventional methods to war that most countries followed). Thus they do not nor have they ever fallen under the protections of the Geneva Convention.

For this reason, if we do not meet them with force (diplomacy doesn't work and has never worked, I believe the Barbary Pirates come to mind as a good example LOL), meet them on terms that they can understand , pain being one that all men bend to. Then how do we expect to win? Or should we hand the keys of the country over to the Islamfascists now?

In this conflict, it's us or them. I'd rather it be them all day, every day.

They won't sit by and play patty-cakes or sit and have tea with us to resolve our differences.
They are animals. If we can save one civilian life by torturing a terrorist bastard. So be it.

In the proverbial words of Tony Soprano - "Paulie, get the ball cutters"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 11:09 AM

KNIBBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
What flag do the terrorists fight under? Do they have names, ranks and serial numbers? What is their common identifiable uniform?


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
We should abandon international law and the Geneva conventions (designed to protect the fighters of ALL nations) when it suits our purpose?


My standards of moral and ethical conduct are not built on a sliding scale. What is right and wrong is not determined by the conduct of my enemy but rather, by the content of my soul.

Throwing our constitution and its protections into the trash is not something I'm willing to do. Having people kidnapped and tortured in foreign countries to avoid United States laws is not something I'm willing to condone.

Of course, invading a sovereign nation in the quest for a natural resource which will be depleted within 40 years is also not high on my "to do" list.

The invasion of Iraq and the seizure of the oil fields has nothing to do with terrorism or 911. The sooner people pull their heads out of Bush's ass and realize that, the fewer US troops and Iraqi's will die in the quest for oil and power.

As a Jew - but a non-Zionist, I must state loudly and clearly: Muslims don't hate our "Freedoms". They aren't pissed because we can choose between 40 brands of feminine hygiene products and 300 cable channels -- we are being targeted due to 100 years of exploitive policies and the fact that our government supports Israel and its genocidal policies.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 11:20 AM

KNIBBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Jadehand:
And Torture? come on, they but leases on them and put panties on their heads. Maybe even attached electrodes to their nipples. There are people in this country that would pay for that kind of treatment in the SM community. That's not torture that's introduction to alternative lifestlyes.



Ahhh, the joys of the obedient american corporate media. They have chosen not to cover many stories because they'd be "upsetting" to the obedient american public.

You haven't seen the worst photos and you haven't heard the worst examples of torture. Raping children is an exceptable "alternative lifestyle" for you?

I've deleted at least 30 reports of murder, rape, beatings, etc. Here's one I received today and hadn't yet cleaned out my mail box.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh_children_raped.html



"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 11:49 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jadehand:
And Torture? come on, they but leases on them and put panties on their heads. Maybe even attached electrodes to their nipples. There are people in this country that would pay for that kind of treatment in the SM community. That's not torture that's introduction to alternative lifestlyes.



Ahhh, the joys of the obedient american corporate media. They have chosen not to cover many stories because they'd be "upsetting" to the obedient american public.

You haven't seen the worst photos and you haven't heard the worst examples of torture. Raping children is an exceptable "alternative lifestyle" for you?

I've deleted at least 30 reports of murder, rape, beatings, etc. Here's one I received today and hadn't yet cleaned out my mail box.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh_children_raped.html



"Just keep walkin, preacher man."



No offense.. I call Bullshit

Our media would be all over that, if that story bore even a smidge of truth. The Arab media would be all over that, not to mention all the other countries in the world for that matter. Or is every country under the countrol of the Obedient American media. I have a couple bridges to sell you cheap, if you believe that garbage.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 12:18 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
What flag do the terrorists fight under? Do they have names, ranks and serial numbers? What is their common identifiable uniform?


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
We should abandon international law and the Geneva conventions (designed to protect the fighters of ALL nations) when it suits our purpose?


My standards of moral and ethical conduct are not built on a sliding scale. What is right and wrong is not determined by the conduct of my enemy but rather, by the content of my soul.

Throwing our constitution and its protections into the trash is not something I'm willing to do. Having people kidnapped and tortured in foreign countries to avoid United States laws is not something I'm willing to condone.

Of course, invading a sovereign nation in the quest for a natural resource which will be depleted within 40 years is also not high on my "to do" list.

The invasion of Iraq and the seizure of the oil fields has nothing to do with terrorism or 911. The sooner people pull their heads out of Bush's ass and realize that, the fewer US troops and Iraqi's will die in the quest for oil and power.

As a Jew - but a non-Zionist, I must state loudly and clearly: Muslims don't hate our "Freedoms". They aren't pissed because we can choose between 40 brands of feminine hygiene products and 300 cable channels -- we are being targeted due to 100 years of exploitive policies and the fact that our government supports Israel and its genocidal policies.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."



You stated that we were breaking the edicts of the Geneva Convention. You were blatantly wrong and skirted direct questions.Too many people spout off bullshit about the Geneva conventions without a F***ing clue as to what they are talking about.

While skirting the direct questions, you claim it has something to do with our constitution? What "Constitutional Protections" do our enemies have outside of America? Or were you claiming that your own personal liberties are hindered horrifically by "the Patriot Act"? *snickers* I know so many people are being hampered daily by the time consuming breach of civil liberties brought on by the PA that they can't live normal lives. PUHHHLEEEASSE...Give me a break. The only people crying are the ones who have something to hide and their bleeding heart supporters.

The content of your soul isn't what is written down in "International law" or the "Geneva Conventions". Frankly , if Osama was to have the opportunity to cleave your head from your body, I doubt very much he'd give a rats ass about the contents of your soul or it's moral and ethical convictions. Nor would he be worried about whether or not he was impinging on your constitutional rights. Though we all seek that "love one another Utopian ideal", where everyone lives peacefully in harmony..it's far from realistic and quite far outside of human nature.

Personally, proclaiming yourself a non-Zionist Jew, is pretty laughable. The terrorists don't make a distinction between the 2. Hell, I can't really think of any distinctions that they make between anyone. So to arbitrarily say that it is Israel's fault solely, or that it's America's own fault what happens because we support Israel is also laughable.

If the Israelis were truly genocidal it would be all over right now. They are nuclear capable. The Palestinians would cease to exist tomorrow. For that matter, so would Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, The Sudan..etc..etc.. All of the non-civilized-biblically burdened Arabic countries would be smoldering. On the contrary, I do believe it is the Islamafascists who are calling for the genocidal wipeout of all jews (Zionist or not ROFLMAO..sorry still find that funny). But hey ya know..they'll stop their aggressive ways after Israel and America are wiped out. Oops..no they won't. France will be next, followed by any other country that doesn't make Islam their defacto rule of law.

It all comes down to human nature. If someone shows aggression towards us, threatens our young, we either cower (also known as appeasement, hello Spain, Hello U.N.) or we fight.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 2:08 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
I just finished watching the first two seasons of 24. That show has US intelligence officers and the President murdering and torturing terrorists and conspirators. Those are the good guys and it seems perfectly acceptable for them to do those otherwise bad acts.

If its acceptable in a fictional setting, why is torture and abuse not acceptable in the real world were the stakes are more...real?



Is there anyone else who finds this question completely disturbing coming from an adult?

Hero, there are some very important distinctions between fiction and reality, that affect the way we solve problems here. In a work of fiction, the artist chooses what's going to happen. People in reality don't always get to choose what happens to them. If the story is any good, it's only gonna have significant detail. The details of the story are gonna add up to a satisfying conclusion. You don't expect that kind of structure from real life, do you?

Look at it in terms of science. In a TV show a scientist discovers what he's looking for because the show's about the discovery, not the generations of scientists who failed before him, or his own 25 years of fruitless experimentation. Only a complete idiot would ask why science can't advance as fast as it can in a TV show. It's a frickin' TV show! Actual reality is endlessly more complex than any TV show could depict.

It disturbs the hell out of me that people like you and like Drakon over in the Demonization of the Opposition thread can believe that this simplistic, black hat/white hat mentality is reflected by the real world.

I didn't think I would ever have to explain this to someone, but the reality in a work of fiction is fundamentally simpler than actual reality and the artist is in complete control of the outcomes. In fiction you can be absolutely certain of the guilt of a criminal, for instance. There's a scene where the criminal does the crime, or there's a scene where the criminal gloats over the crime to his gang. That's when the hero busts in the door and apprehends him. That just isn't how life works.

Hey, I haven't seen the show, but in the episode where the President tortures his victim, is there ANY question of the victim's guilt? Any at all? Christ! The very idea is disgusting. I don't want the President of the United States torturing anyone, thank you. I don't think I'm alone here.

You cannot be anywhere near as certain of just about anything in real life as the characters in a TV show can be.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
In other words...if you could stop 9/11 by torturing a foriegn terrorist and just maybe arranging for the murder of his family in front of him live via satalite, would it be wrong?



First of all, that is one ginormous IF. How could you ever determine that the torture of a given person was responsible for preventing a terrorist attack from happening? And how would you ever know if there wasn't a far more sane and morally credible way to do it if you did? Or better yet, can you name me a single historical example of it? In reality, it is possible to kill the wrong guy's family. And even if it is the "right" guy, you're gonna kill his whole family?

Is that what 9/11 has reduced us to? If so, then the war is over and they've won.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 19, 2004 3:12 PM

DARKJESTER


Quote:

No offense.. I call Bullshit

Our media would be all over that, if that story bore even a smidge of truth. The Arab media would be all over that, not to mention all the other countries in the world for that matter.



Sorry Connorflynn, I disagree. Three separate news sources reporting something (albeit all three quoted on the same web page) is not bullshit. It may be wrong, but it can't be dismissed in such an off-hand and mildly insulting way. Nine months ago, accusations of prison torture in Iraq were regarded as bullshit, too. It took months, but the world press finally got "all over that". It took actual photographic evidence being presented before the media payed serious attention. In the meantime, the accusations remained true. Not reporting an event doesn't mean that the event never happened. Not having worldwide coverage of something doesn't mean that that thing didn't happen. Once a story like this has been verified, then the press will (perhaps) begin a coverage blitz, if it will help their ratings. Until then, it will be the smaller, independent sources reporting on it.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 2:13 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by DarkJester:
Quote:

No offense.. I call Bullshit

Our media would be all over that, if that story bore even a smidge of truth. The Arab media would be all over that, not to mention all the other countries in the world for that matter.



Sorry Connorflynn, I disagree. Three separate news sources reporting something (albeit all three quoted on the same web page) is not bullshit. It may be wrong, but it can't be dismissed in such an off-hand and mildly insulting way. Nine months ago, accusations of prison torture in Iraq were regarded as bullshit, too. It took months, but the world press finally got "all over that". It took actual photographic evidence being presented before the media payed serious attention. In the meantime, the accusations remained true. Not reporting an event doesn't mean that the event never happened. Not having worldwide coverage of something doesn't mean that that thing didn't happen. Once a story like this has been verified, then the press will (perhaps) begin a coverage blitz, if it will help their ratings. Until then, it will be the smaller, independent sources reporting on it.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."



I still call Bullshit. It's not done in an off-handed way. I don't care if its "mildly-insulting", I call it like I see it. Frankly anyone who can rub 2 braincells together can see right through the crap printed on that website.

Firstly, theres a big difference between prisoner abuses (torture is too strong a word for what was done to those men in Abu Ghraib) and the raping of children. Secondly, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE that at least one noteworthy and reliable news source throughout the world hasn't had the rape of Iraqi children as a major headline. The Anti- American sentiment throughout the world alone would give reason to the exposure of any such criminal acts.

BOING BOING is not a noteworthy or reliable news source. Its along the lines of a "World Weekly News" or "National Enquirer". All BULLSHIT no substance.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:24 AM

WHISPERING


So your saying its ok if Iraq soldiers torture US soldiers and civilians?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:54 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by whispering:
So your saying its ok if Iraq soldiers torture US soldiers and civilians?



Eh?! What are you talking about? We aren't the ones running around blowing ourselves up in the name of Allah. These pricks aren't going to tell us any information regarding their cells etc..by being nice to them. For the most part the majority of the people being "Tortured" are wanton criminals who don't deserve anything more then a bullet in the back of the head. They're lucky all we are doing is throwing some panties over their heads or "Pretending" we are going to electrocute them.

People keep forgetting that these animals are the enemy. They aren't good, kind, peace loving namby pamby tree-huggers. We can't reason with them. Being nice doesn't do anything but embolden them.

As a reminder:
Terrorists don't torture civilians..they behead them. They can't seem to get their hands on any soldiers or are too afraid to try. So much for the Geneva Conventions or Moral fibre.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:04 AM

KNIBBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Too many people spout off bullshit about the Geneva conventions without a F***ing clue as to what they are talking about.

What "Constitutional Protections" do our enemies have outside of America? Or were you claiming that your own personal liberties are hindered horrifically by "the Patriot Act"? The only people crying are the ones who have something to hide and their bleeding heart supporters.

Personally, proclaiming yourself a non-Zionist Jew, is pretty laughable. The terrorists don't make a distinction between the 2.



Thank you for explaining my shortcomings to me, ConnorFlynn. I will now do all I can to forget everything I learned about the Geneva Conventions and the Code of Military Conduct that I learned during my 10 years in the Air Force. I'll do all I can to put aside the logic behind protecting the fighting forces of all sides.

I'll try to forget that from day 1, we were taught was acceptable and unacceptable.

Of course, to do the above, I must try to forget that my constitutional right of Habeus Corpus is now ... not so much. I, or anyone deemed an enemy combatant, can be stripped of all rights and identity, held without charge, held indefinitely, held without access to a lawyer or the Red Cross.

Now those 'enemy combatants' are nothing but a convenient dodge around the Geneva Conventions. Bush's lawyers are using the same dodge that Hitler's tried in WWII. -- Before you scream about my comparing Bush to Hitler, look at your history and how the nazis proclaimed airborne commandos to be 'terrorists' and exempt for GC protections -- It didn't work for them and it shouldn't work for Bush.

I don't remember asking your opinion upon being a non-Zionist Jew. I have the perfect American religious background -- Catholic, Lutheran and Jew. Three sets of grandparents telling me three different things. I learned that all religion is a crock of *(*##^ designed to keep the mudders in line.

Holding no respect for Israel's treatment of Palestinians is my option. I firmly believe that if fundamentalist Christians weren't convinced that the second coming of Christ is somehow connected with Israel and Jerusalem, we wouldn't be shoveling money and support into what is going to turn this planet into a glowing nuclear (or is that nukular?) ember.


"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:07 AM

KNIBBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by whispering:
So your saying its ok if Iraq soldiers torture US soldiers and civilians?



Yes, he is - although he'll say he isn't. As he's justifying it for one side, he's justifying it for all sides.
He'll probably call you horrible names and treat you like an imbecile in his rebuttal. Remember this simple truth:

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Mr Both Ways is pouring lots of pain and suffering into the roasting pan.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:41 AM

WHISPERING


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Eh?! What are you talking about? We aren't the ones running around blowing ourselves up in the name of Allah. These pricks aren't going to tell us any information regarding their cells etc..by being nice to them. For the most part the majority of the people being "Tortured" are wanton criminals who don't deserve anything more then a bullet in the back of the head. They're lucky all we are doing is throwing some panties over their heads or "Pretending" we are going to electrocute them.


You cant be serious. These are human beings were talking about. If you want to know what happens when you use torture as a weapon in war, just read what happened in Rwanda, or the current situation in Sudan.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:07 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
Thank you for explaining my shortcomings to me, ConnorFlynn. I will now do all I can to forget everything I learned about the Geneva Conventions and the Code of Military Conduct that I learned during my 10 years in the Air Force. I'll do all I can to put aside the logic behind protecting the fighting forces of all sides.

I'll try to forget that from day 1, we were taught was acceptable and unacceptable.

Of course, to do the above, I must try to forget that my constitutional right of Habeus Corpus is now ... not so much. I, or anyone deemed an enemy combatant, can be stripped of all rights and identity, held without charge, held indefinitely, held without access to a lawyer or the Red Cross.

Now those 'enemy combatants' are nothing but a convenient dodge around the Geneva Conventions. Bush's lawyers are using the same dodge that Hitler's tried in WWII. -- Before you scream about my comparing Bush to Hitler, look at your history and how the nazis proclaimed airborne commandos to be 'terrorists' and exempt for GC protections -- It didn't work for them and it shouldn't work for Bush.

I don't remember asking your opinion upon being a non-Zionist Jew. I have the perfect American religious background -- Catholic, Lutheran and Jew. Three sets of grandparents telling me three different things. I learned that all religion is a crock of *(*##^ designed to keep the mudders in line.

Holding no respect for Israel's treatment of Palestinians is my option. I firmly believe that if fundamentalist Christians weren't convinced that the second coming of Christ is somehow connected with Israel and Jerusalem, we wouldn't be shoveling money and support into what is going to turn this planet into a glowing nuclear (or is that nukular?) ember.


"Just keep walkin, preacher man."



Man, you just bounce around without any direction and continue to avoid direct questions.

You spoke of genocide. Now you liken genocide to Israeli disregard of Palestinian rights and their mistreatment.

You speak of knowing what the Geneva Conventions are, yet avoid just a couple simple direct questions regarding them.

I don't believe you have a clue as to what the Geneva Conventions are. If you did, you wouldn't be declaring that we are breaking them. We aren't holding these animals as Enemy Combatants just for the hell of it, as if they don't have anything to do with what is going on. These aren't innocent people who are having their rights stripped. They are dangerous men in one fashion or another with designs on bringing down our country or other free civilized countries. They don't follow conventional war tactics in any form. We can't fight them like we would a conventional war. Surely in your "10 years in the Airforce" you learned those precepts.


Enemy combatant,Illegal combatant (also unlawful combatant) is a term that has been introduced in some countries to refer to a person who carries arms or engages in warlike acts (known as an enemy combatant) in alleged violation of the laws of war. The Geneva Conventions consist of treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns. The conventions were the results of efforts by Henri Dunant, who was motivated by the horrors of war he witnessed at the Battle of Solferino.
Accusations of violation of the Geneva Conventions on the part of signatory nations are brought before the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The countries do not necessarily consider such persons as lawful combatants. A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war.


Under the Geneva Conventions, persons waging war must have the following four characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

In uniform: Wear distinctive clothing making them recognizable as soldiers from a distance.

Nope..the terrorist shitheels don't do that, unless a Khaffiyah counts.

Openly bearing arms: Carrying guns or small arms and not concealing them.

Yeah I suppose Belts or cars laden with explosives are open and unconcealed. Oh wait..nope they are concealed.

Under officers: Obedient to a chain of command ending in a political leader or government.

hmm.. very tough, noone is exactly sure who is in charge.

Fighting according to the laws of war: Not committing atrocities or crimes, not deliberately attacking civilians or engaging in terrorism.

LOL.. World Trade Center anyone? Suicide bombings? hmm..need I go on?

Now lets see, if they fall under the above, which they don't, they would be considered a POW.

A Prisoner of War (POW) is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during an armed conflict.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 provides a framework of protective rights of POWs. The basic principle is that being a soldier is not a punishable act in itself. The laws apply from the moment a prisoner is captured until he is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners, and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).

The term Enemy combatant was first introduced in 1942 (before the Geneva Conventions) by a United States Supreme court decision in the case of "ex parte Quirin".
Hmm.. where's Hitler?

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs.

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening an enemy through subversion, obstruction, disruption, and/or destruction. In war, the word is used to describe the activity of an individual or group not associated with the military (such as a foreign agent or an indigenous supporter), in particular when actions results in the destruction or damaging of a productive or vital facility, such as equipment, factories, dams, public services, or supplies storage. Unlike acts of terrorism, acts of sabotage do not have a primary objective of causing casualties (but does not exclude this). Saboteurs are usually classified as unlawful enemy combatants. This decision states:

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."


I hope that clears things up a little bit in the short term.

As for the rest -

By declaring yourself a non-zionist Jew you directly expect people to look upon that as noteworthy like it makes a difference. It's a f***ing joke. Who gives a shit?! To the extremists , once they lop your heads off, you're all pink on the inside. It's seems more of a PC declaration to appease the militant Muslim shitwads that are wreaking havoc throughout the world or their sympathizers who peruse these boards with their rigourous conspiracy theories and anti-american anti-semitic rhetoric.

First it was a "War for Oil" issue, which has been proven blatantly false. Now you've moved onto "Its all them damn Christian Fundamentalists at fault" another falsehood.

This has nothing to do with Fundamentalist Christianity (another form of extremism I detest, though they don't blow themselves up in the name of Jehovah). This has to do with the wanton and deliberate attacks, on innocents in a cowardly fashion, in Israel and throughout the world, regardless of civilian/military status, age, sex or nationality (Israelis aren't the only ones dying in suicide attacks).





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:18 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Is there anyone else who finds this question completely disturbing coming from an adult?



Saw show, had thought, asked question. Now a reasoned discussion. If that is not an adult sequence of events then I don't know what is.

Quote:


The details of the story are gonna add up to a satisfying conclusion. You don't expect that kind of structure from real life, do you?



I don't agree. I've always found history reads like a book, and alot of the good parts end up as movies. I see your point, however. You are concerned that the uncertainty of the moment undermines the probability of a satisfying conclusion. I would suggest that this is the same as watching an 'all new' episode of Firefly or 24 without ever seeing a preview or trailor.

My central premise is not about the fictional world or the popularity of the shows in question. Its about the popularity of the characters and approval of the actions taken. If those actions are justified in the 'hypothetical' circumstances of the show, then why not in similar real world scenarios?

Quote:


Look at it in terms of science. In a TV show a scientist discovers what he's looking for because the show's about the discovery, not the generations of scientists who failed before him, or his own 25 years of fruitless experimentation.



I think the scientist who makes the discovery would disagree with you. For that person the story of the moment is about the discovery, everything else is background and set dressing.

Quote:


It disturbs the hell out of me that people like you and like Drakon over in the Demonization of the Opposition thread can believe that this simplistic, black hat/white hat mentality is reflected by the real world.



Yikes. Don't know Drakon, never posted on that thread. Always preferred a grey hat myself. But good guys and bad guys is a good way to sum up the real world. Take Iraq, you have terrorists killing innocent Iraqis and Coalition soldiers. You have Coalition soldiers killing innocent Iraqis and terrorists. The difference? The good guys feel remorse, but carry on and do their duty seeking to protect and serve and secure the blessings of liberty etc, etc. The bad guys dance in the streets and look for the next target to instill terror and sow chaos and destruction. Now maybe you don't agree with the color of their hats, but I think the differences are pretty broad.

Quote:


Hey, I haven't seen the show, but in the episode where the President tortures his victim, is there ANY question of the victim's guilt? Any at all? Christ! The very idea is disgusting. I don't want the President of the United States torturing anyone, thank you. I don't think I'm alone here.



I suggest you watch the show. To answer your question withoit a 'spoiler' warning...yes there is doubt, much doubt and the real plot isn't about terror at all. Good show, you might like it.

Speaking of the real world...I was watching O'Reilly interview an Army interrogator. The conclusion was that 'aggressive' interrogation (which is about discomfort and blackmail, not outright torture) is far more effective then softer methods. Perhaps this is a viable compromise. vs.

And again: I'm just asking the questions, not advocating a particular answer...


H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:49 AM

KNIBBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Man, you just bounce around without any direction and continue to avoid direct questions.

You speak of knowing what the Geneva Conventions are, yet avoid just a couple simple direct questions regarding them... Accusations of violation of the Geneva Conventions on the part of signatory nations are brought before the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

You spoke of genocide. Now you liken genocide to Israeli disregard of Palestinian rights and their mistreatment.


The countries do not necessarily consider such persons as lawful combatants. A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war.


The term Enemy combatant was first introduced in 1942 (before the Geneva Conventions) by a United States Supreme court decision in the case of "ex parte Quirin". Hmm.. where's Hitler?

By declaring yourself a non-zionist Jew you directly expect people to look upon that as noteworthy like it makes a difference... It's seems more of a PC declaration to appease the militant Muslim shitwads that are wreaking havoc throughout the world or their sympathizers who peruse these boards with their rigourous conspiracy theories and anti-american anti-semitic rhetoric.

First it was a "War for Oil" issue, which has been proven blatantly false. Now you've moved onto "Its all them damn Christian fundamentalists at fault" another falsehood.


This has nothing to do with Fundamentalist Christianity (another form of extremism I detest, though they don't blow themselves up in the name of Jehovah). This has to do with the wanton and deliberate attacks on civilians in Israel and throughout the world, regardless of civilian/military status, age, sex or nationality (Israelis aren't the only ones dying in suicide attacks).


Bitter much?

Speaking of the World Court - I wonder why our domestic regime is attempting to have all American servicemembers and government officials be granted immunity from war crimes charges ... makes you go hmmmmmmm.

I said that the courts didn't buy into the nazi's proclaiming paratroops 'terrorists' and justifying immediate execution or torture. It didn't work for them - it shouldn't work for us.

Many of those prisoners had NOTHING to do with anything but being in jail for unrelated crimes. The photo of the man in the hood with the wires connected to his body was in jail for carjacking. What the hell does carjacking have to do with knowing where non-existant WMD are?

Our puppet regime should not be exempt from law either. Here's a lovely little story you won't see on Fox News or 60 Minutes - A little story of putting bullets into prisoner's heads.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_19-7-2004_pg1_2

I never said that Israel is responsible for this war. What I said was: we aren't hated because of our 'freedoms' - we are hated because of our exploitive policies and our unwavering support for the exploitive and genocidal policies of Israel.

Genocide is an accurate definition for what is being conducted in Israel. By no means am I justifying or excusing terrorism, what I am saying is that the situation is creating terrorism.

The barrier being built (The existance thereof was denied by Israel for over 6 months before they had to admit they were building it) is destroying thousands of homes, farms and villages.

Here's another little bit of dehumanization against arab citizens.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/453006.html

I also never said that this war is the result of fundamentalist christians supporting Israel. I believe the reason the US supports Israel so blindly is, religious goblygook and the beliefs of some that Israel's existance will be necessary to faciliate the second coming of Christ.

Extremists of all stripe are dangerous. An Arab with a bomb strapped around his waist is no more dangerous than a bible thumping Baptist bombing a women's clinic.
A militant with a gun is a militant with a gun. A militant with a bomb is a militant with a bomb.

Those militants live everywhere and believe in many different religions and philosophies.

This is a war for oil. However, religion and the dehumanization of the enemy is being used to justify torture.

I didn't realize that identifying myself by citing my varied cultural background would be taken as proclaiming myself as some shining example of perfection and knowledge.

It was meant only to be indicative of the thought I've put into this situation. Perhaps I should realize that some people are going to look for ways to intentionally misread or read into statement what they want to read to justify getting pissy and insulting.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:28 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:

Bitter much?



Yes, absolutely 100%. I'm sick to death of America bashers. I'm sick to death of unrealistic peaceniks who blame the worlds problems on my country. I'm sick to death of people outside my country laying claim to having a more in depth knowledge of what goes on in America then those of us who live here. I'm sick to death of lame assed , no basis in fact, specious comments.

Quote:

Speaking of the World Court - I wonder why our domestic regime is attempting to have all American servicemembers and government officials be granted immunity from war crimes charges ... makes you go hmmmmmmm.


Like any other conspiracy theorist, why don't you enlighten us. I believe it is to prevent every Mohammed Mohammad Mohammad from making a war crime complaint when they stub their toe or the wind changes direction after a US Soldier farted and the person had to smell it out of hand. In other words, it's primarily to prevent the many time consuming, costly instances of ridiculous litigation.

Quote:

I said that the courts didn't buy into the nazi's proclaiming paratroops 'terrorists' and justifying immediate execution or torture. It didn't work for them - it shouldn't work for us.


hmm.. okies. How many executions have we committed out of hand? Yet again you avoid the direct question. Do the terrorists and their sympathizers and accomplices meet the guidelines for protection under the Geneva conventions, and what "Non-torture" methods should we use to get wanton zealots to spill the beans?

Quote:

Many of those prisoners had NOTHING to do with anything but being in jail for unrelated crimes. The photo of the man in the hood with the wires connected to his body was in jail for carjacking. What the hell does carjacking have to do with knowing where non-existant WMD are?


Last I checked, we weren't just in Iraq to hunt for WMD's. Since the majority of car-jackings and kidnappings that follow them are directly linked to foreign terrorists, how the hell can you miss the link? Again, how do we get these pricks to talk, without using forceful measures, short of threatened execution?

Quote:

Our puppet regime should not be exempt from law either. Here's a lovely little story you won't see on Fox News or 60 Minutes - A little story of putting bullets into prisoner's heads.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_19-7-2004_pg1_2



Puhhllllleassse. For the love of god.. a news report from a pakistani editorial? How about a real news source. How about we substitute Tony Blairs name for Allawi and call it a day. I'm sure it'd be just as true. They don't even give source names. It reeks of Jason Blair syndrome.

Quote:

I never said that Israel is responsible for this war. What I said was: we aren't hated because of our 'freedoms' - we are hated because of our exploitive policies and our unwavering support for the exploitive and genocidal policies of Israel.

Genocide is an accurate definition for what is being conducted in Israel. By no means am I justifying or excusing terrorism, what I am saying is that the situation is creating terrorism.



Maybe genocide of Hamas and all its related terrorist buddies. Good riddance say I. As for the Palestinian people, no. ISrael does not seek the extermination of all arabs. The only time they strike out is after a terrorist attack or when a terrorist pops his weasley coward head up.

Quote:

The barrier being built (The existance thereof was denied by Israel for over 6 months before they had to admit they were building it) is destroying thousands of homes, farms and villages.


The Palestinain territories just aren't that big. How about you either deflate the number or inflate it a little bit more, like the standard arab media lackeys. Lets say Millions of people are being displaced, killed and their homes being destroyed by the Zionist death machine..roflmao. quite frankly we should all pull out and let them duke it out. Let Manifest destiny reign supreme. Let's see who is the victor when the dust settle.

Quote:

Here's another little bit of dehumanization against arab citizens.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/453006.html



Boohoo...**hands out the box of Kleenex** lets see saving lives or worrying about who can marry and bring a collaborator into the country. People can live together and sleep together without the need for a F***ing marriage license. People can't live together and sleep together if they are in little pieces at the scene of a suicide bombing. Tough shit. Suck it up or move to the Palestinian sandbox and marry all the people you want to.

Quote:

I also never said that this war is the result of fundamentalist christians supporting Israel. I believe the reason the US supports Israel so blindly is, religious goblygook and the beliefs of some that Israel's existance will be necessary to faciliate the second coming of Christ.


What the F**k?!! What are you smoking? Here's what you said just alil while ago. How do you read that? I read it, that Israel is going to be the cause for the end of the world ROFLMAO..

Quote:

Holding no respect for Israel's treatment of Palestinians is my option. I firmly believe that if fundamentalist Christians weren't convinced that the second coming of Christ is somehow connected with Israel and Jerusalem, we wouldn't be shoveling money and support into what is going to turn this planet into a glowing nuclear (or is that nukular?) ember.


Quote:

Extremists of all stripe are dangerous. An Arab with a bomb strapped around his waist is no more dangerous than a bible thumping Baptist bombing a women's clinic.
A militant with a gun is a militant with a gun. A militant with a bomb is a militant with a bomb.



How many suicide bombings or bombings in general have occurred around the world this last year that were Muslim in origination and how many were Fundamentalist Christian or any other religion for that matter in origination. Talk about downplaying the current state of world affairs and the effect that the extremist Muslims are having. Talk about denial LOL.

Quote:

Those militants live everywhere and believe in many different religions and philosophies.


Ah.. see above. I think you are blinded by your belief that they aren't evil incarnate. World War III has started and it is a war against Extremist Islam. I don't see anyone else lining up to blow themselves up along with a bunch of civilians.

Quote:

This is a war for oil. However, religion and the dehumanization of the enemy is being used to justify torture.


ROFLMAO..so be it. Us against them. All day everyday. When are my fuel bills going to go down with all this oil that we went to war for?

Quote:

I didn't realize that identifying myself by citing my varied cultural background would be taken as proclaiming myself as some shining example of perfection and knowledge.

It was meant only to be indicative of the thought I've put into this situation. Perhaps I should realize that some people are going to look for ways to intentionally misread or read into statement what they want to read to justify getting pissy and insulting.



Your statement claiming you were a "Non-Zionist" Jew was pretentious and made it sound like any Zionist Jew didn't have a clue. It didn't reflect anything but that. Insulting my country at every turn is enough reason for me to get pissy. Especially when the comments are specious and without foundation in reality. Or do you count crappy independent high fiction editorials, as reality?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:40 AM

KNIBBLET


There is absolutely nothing I can say in reply without reducing myself to your level of bigotry and hatred.

Good day, Sir.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:51 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
There is absolutely nothing I can say in reply without reducing myself to your level of bigotry and hatred.

Good day, Sir.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."



How about answering the questions I pose, rather then posting some specious fiction. As for me being a bigot full of hatred. If you'll look at just about every single frigging Topic header in the "Real World Event Discussions" and tell me who is doing the hating. Everyone who has a Pro-America opinion and calls bullshit when the see it, is a bigot and full of hatred. Everyone who is Anti-America is considered progressive and righteous. At least mine is a justified disdain,rather then a misplaced bashfest on the US of A.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:38 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by whispering:
Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Eh?! What are you talking about? We aren't the ones running around blowing ourselves up in the name of Allah. These pricks aren't going to tell us any information regarding their cells etc..by being nice to them. For the most part the majority of the people being "Tortured" are wanton criminals who don't deserve anything more then a bullet in the back of the head. They're lucky all we are doing is throwing some panties over their heads or "Pretending" we are going to electrocute them.


You cant be serious. These are human beings were talking about. If you want to know what happens when you use torture as a weapon in war, just read what happened in Rwanda, or the current situation in Sudan.



Yep, these are human beings bent on death and destruction. Not worthy enough to breath the same air we do IMHO. What other way will we get them to talk? Tea and crumpets? lol.

The similarity between us and the Sudan is that it is once again Muslim extremism running rampant while the UN stands by too afraid to rise up and kick their coward asses. Oh they'll have 10 UN resolutions proclaiming the tragedy of what is happening there, but by the time they get around to ever acting on it ,if ever, millions will have been killed.

The difference between us (the US),Rwanda or the Sudan is that we are trying to save lives by finding the Terrorist cells before they achieve their goals,death and destruction of honest god-fearing civilians. The only way is to rip, pull, tug and tear the information out of the Militants we have. Thats the only way we will get any info from them. We have no choice. The battle is on. We will make them talk. We will find their hidden cells and we will end them or they will keep blowing shit up.

My compassion towards them ended when they beheaded Paul Johnson, Nick Berg, Kim Il and Daniel Pearl.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:03 AM

WHISPERING


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Yep, these are human beings bent on death and destruction. Not worthy enough to breath the same air we do IMHO. What other way will we get them to talk? Tea and crumpets? lol.


Your crazy, neo nazi bulls***, nothing more.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:06 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by whispering:
Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Yep, these are human beings bent on death and destruction. Not worthy enough to breath the same air we do IMHO. What other way will we get them to talk? Tea and crumpets? lol.


Your crazy, neo nazi bulls***, nothing more.



Yep, that'll get em to talk LOL

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:08 AM

KNIBBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by whispering:
Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Yep, these are human beings bent on death and destruction. Not worthy enough to breath the same air we do IMHO. What other way will we get them to talk? Tea and crumpets? lol.


Your crazy, neo nazi bulls***, nothing more.



Tisk tisk, Whispering.

I've come to realize that Connorflynn cannot possibly believe everything he's saying. He's simply entertaining himself by getting other people to respond to his extreme posts.

Don't let him get you riled up. You're merely providing free entertainment.

Take a chill pill and force him to go to buy a book or go to the movies or whatever else he might find entertaining.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:42 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
My compassion towards them ended when they beheaded Paul Johnson, Nick Berg, Kim Il and Daniel Pearl.


I've met people like you before.

Try this one out, from real life, paraphrased:
Person 1 “You going to see that Nazi bastard?”
Person 2 “I’m going to fix some appliances in apartment four.”
Person 1 “That’s the Nazi bastard. He should be shot.”
Person 2 “He’s just an old man.”
Person 1 “He’s a Nazi bastard.”
You might notice at this point that the term “Nazi bastard” was used quite a bit.
Person 2 “Why don’t you leave him alone?”
Person 1 “They didn’t leave us alone.”
*conversation ends*
While fixing the appliance person two notices a tattoo on the “Nazi bastard”’s arm. It was a concentration camp identification number. The so-called “Nazi bastard” was a victim. He had just as much connecting him to the Nazis as some of these people have connecting them to terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:02 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

He had just as much connecting him to the Nazis as some of these people have connecting them to terrorists.


I'm not sure where you're coming from here LOL. Clue me in. Who are "these people"? I hope your not talking about the insurgents LOL, because they are definitely linked to foreign terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:10 AM

KNIBBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:



Chris, that entire conversation made little sense without a context. Where and when did it take place - give us some history.

Also, please stop feeding the troll. Please, people, I'm getting a migraine.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:20 AM

WHISPERING


Retry...
Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
The difference between us (the US),Rwanda or the Sudan is that we are trying to save lives by finding the Terrorist cells before they achieve their goals,death and destruction of honest god-fearing civilians. The only way is to rip, pull, tug and tear the information out of the Militants we have. Thats the only way we will get any info from them. We have no choice. The battle is on. We will make them talk. We will find their hidden cells and we will end them or they will keep blowing shit up.


Yep, i'm sure they'll be thrilled in the funeral. Witch would pretty much take you 2 steps back and erase what (if anything) you have achieved by the rip-pull-tug thing. Some dont like to see their people die. The fact that you accuse them for hating you, trying to attack your country or whatever, yet you have far worst hatred against them, hypocrite?

I just wonder what would be the ideal world for you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:24 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:



Chris, that entire conversation made little sense without a context. Where and when did it take place - give us some history.

Also, please stop feeding the troll. Please, people, I'm getting a migraine.


I've had similar incidents, I figure we all have, but I don’t talk about them. That happened to my father, he was Person 2. It was an apartment building in Maine. I’m not sure of the date. Certainly no less than 20 years after the war.

I’ll take your advice and not respond to the troll, even though I would like to.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:19 PM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by whispering:

Yep, i'm sure they'll be thrilled in the funeral. Witch would pretty much take you 2 steps back and erase what (if anything) you have achieved by the rip-pull-tug thing. Some dont like to see their people die.



LOL thats why all the beheadings by these militant deathmongers have been video taped and televised on the internet. But I'm wrong for not wanting to see my people die by the hands of these monsters.

Quote:

The fact that you accuse them for hating you, trying to attack your country or whatever, yet you have far worst hatred against them, hypocrite?


They did attack my country. They continue to attcak my countrymen abroad. Its not an idle accusation. I'm a hypocrite because I want to see terrorism crushed LOL. So be it. I'm a hypocrite.

Quote:

I just wonder what would be the ideal world for you?


The ideal world for me would be one where I didn't have to worry about some crazed Arab blowing himself up in my country or abroad.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

JADEHAND ", I'd still do it in less than a heartbeat. I'd do it a hundred times. Wrong? yes. Unexceptable? No."
CONNORFLYNN "If we can save one civilian life by torturing a terrorist bastard. So be it." "The only people crying are the ones who have something to hide and their bleeding heart supporters."



Until they 'disappear' a harmless family member, or friend, and look at YOU intently. Why WERE you hanging out with that terrorist?

Quote:

CONNORFLYNN "No offense.. I call Bullshit"


http://multigraphic.dk/lounge/weblog/weblog.php?id=P940 "There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist," the U.S. Defence Secretary [Donald Rumsfeld] told the Senate armed services committee. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact. I mean, I looked at them last night and they're hard to believe," he continued glumly, without going into detail. U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters yesterday that "the American people need to understand that we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience."

I could have pulled this same item from the WashingtonPost, NYTimes, LATimes etc - just happened to get it from NZ country. Look it up yourself.

Quote:

CONNORFLYNN ""...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants."
etc

I searched through all four Geneva Conventions, and Protocols I and II, and didn't find what you so elaborately quoted. A reference would be appreciated.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Art. 2. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
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; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (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.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:22 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

CONNORFLYNN ""...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants."


Quote:

I searched through all four Geneva Conventions, and Protocols I and II, and didn't find what you so elaborately quoted. A reference would be appreciated.


Be happy to Rue. Thanks for an actual question rather then a specious comment.

The statement above was taken from a 1942 US Supreme Court decision regarding the definition of "enemy combatants". I believe the case is "ex parte Quirin". That particular comment was to explain where the term Enemy Combatant came from.

After I explained where the definition came from , I then followed up with a few guidelines that explain what criteria a person has to meet to be considered under the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Hope that helps.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:26 AM

CONNORFLYNN


I apologize for not posting a link to the case. Here it is:
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/tmkeck/Cases/ExParteQuirin1942.html


Geneva Conventions
Article 50
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.


-------------------------------------------------


Ex parte Quirin 1942

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


But the Geneva Convention also states that individuals caught in the act of sabotage, or for whom there is an equally strong suspicion of the same, MAY be held incommunicado to avoid threat to the State, but MUST be treated humanely, and that all other portions of the Geneva Convention(s) apply. (IBID)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 6:06 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
But the Geneva Convention also states that individuals caught in the act of sabotage, or for whom there is an equally strong suspicion of the same, MAY be held incommunicado to avoid threat to the State, but MUST be treated humanely, and that all other portions of the Geneva Convention(s) apply. (IBID)



As per

Geneva Conventions
Article 50
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

National security is at risk. Military operations hinge upon information gathered, regarding terrorist cells, plans and action.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:45 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


And right below that is says:

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.


As I gather, since the US is a party to the Geneva Conventions it is obligated to follow them, BOTH as an actor in a war (declared or otherwise) AND as an occupying power, whether or not the other side is a signatory. Individuals caught in the act of, or under STRONG suspicion of sabotage may be held incommunicado to protect security, but are granted the other Geneva protections.

And I haven't specifically looked up whether or not it is legal to maintain UNLISTED prisoners, but that is clearly a different issue than being held incommunicado.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:22 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Here is a miscellaneous question sort-of along this line that I hope someone can help me out with: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/politics/31gitmo.html?th

Quote:

The Justice Department said in a federal court filing on Friday that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who were seeking to file petitions challenging their detentions were not entitled to access to their lawyers to do so.

Now I realize the Supreme Court Decision was pretty weak-kneed - it basically said you have to have a habeus corpus hearing but didn't specify the venue, process etc.
But even the GITMO honchos say only about 10% of the prisoners - oh, pardon me - detainees - have any credible link to terrorism.
So why is the Admin hanging on to the whole lot like a croc with it's jaws clamped shut?
I don't get it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sun, November 24, 2024 10:59 - 422 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 10:58 - 4797 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 09:50 - 7496 posts
The Islamic Way Of War
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:51 - 41 posts
Favourite Novels Of All Time?
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:40 - 44 posts
Russia to quit International Space Station
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:05 - 10 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:03 - 946 posts
Russia should never interfere in any other nation's internal politics, meanwhile the USA and IMF is helping kill Venezuela
Sun, November 24, 2024 07:48 - 103 posts
Japanese Culture, S.Korea movies are now outselling American entertainment products
Sun, November 24, 2024 07:24 - 51 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:04 - 180 posts
Giant UFOs caught on videotape
Sun, November 24, 2024 05:43 - 8 posts
California on the road to Venezuela
Sun, November 24, 2024 05:41 - 26 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL