Day One of the Deconstruction.

[mousewallrat]

(http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Guantanamo-Bay2C-Cuba-President-George-W-Bush/photo//090120/481/295531c8dd3144f28575abdcc1f50940//s:/ap/20090121/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_sept11_trial)Without even holding a hearing, this domestic Jihadhi's trial has been suspended. Where is the sympathy for the dead soldier? The article is full of how the damned Jihadhi feels...not a word about the poor trooper killed by him. It makes me sick. My suggestion; no more Prisoners of War...they were all 'shot while trying to escape'.



JUDGE SUSPENDS GITMO TRIAL


A\P GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – A judge on Wednesday quickly granted President Barack Obama's request to suspend the war crimes trial of a young Canadian in what may be the beginning of the end for the Bush administration's system of trying alleged terrorists.


The judge, Army Col. Patrick Parrish, issued a one-sentence written order for the 120-day continuance, without even holding a hearing on the question. Another judge was expected to rule later Wednesday on a similar motion to suspend the trial of five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Prosecutors submitted the motions just hours after Obama's inauguration at the direction of the president and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
U.S. military prosecutor Clay Trivett said all pending cases should be suspended because a review of the military commissions system may result in significant changes. Obama has said he will close Guantanamo and many expect he will scrap the special war crimes court and direct that cases be prosecuted in the U.S.
The 120-day suspension "has the practical effect of stopping the process, probably forever," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, Omar Khadr's defense lawyer.
Khadr, a Toronto native, faces charges that include supporting terrorism and murder for allegedly killing U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer of Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a grenade during a 2002 battle in Afghanistan when he was 15.
Khadr, the son of an alleged al-Qaida militant who was slain by Pakistani forces in 2003, has faced up to life in prison if convicted by the military commission. His lawyer says he should now be prosecuted, if at all, in a civilian court, though he would prefer that be repatriated to Canada.
"He is anxious. He doesn't know what's going to happen, none of us knows what's going to happen," Kuebler said after discussing the delay with the 22-year-old prisoner. "But we are all hopeful and somewhat optimistic that this ruling now creates a space for the two governments to do something constructive to solve this case."
War crimes charges are pending against 21 men being held at Guantanamo, including the five charged with murder and other crimes in the Sept. 11 case. Before Obama became president, the U.S. had said it planned to try dozens of detainees in a system created by former President George W. Bush and Congress in 2006.
Relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, who were at the base this week to observe pretrial hearings, told reporters they oppose any delay. But human rights groups and others welcomed the development.
Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights program at the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was a positive step but "the president's order leaves open the option of this discredited system remaining in existence."
The decision was also welcomed by the European Union, which repeatedly criticized the Bush administration over alleged human rights abuses at Guantanamo as well as for the military commissions.
The European Commission "has been very pleased that one of the first actions of Mr. Obama has been to turn the page on this sad episode of Guantanamo," said Michele Cercone, spokesman for the EU Justice and Home Affairs Commission.

[Tilly]

Pretty crazy, though this does just seem like a publicity stunt. I just hope it doesn't end up dismissed.

[Willow]

Without even holding a hearing, this domestic Jihadhi's trial has been suspended. Where is the sympathy for the dead soldier? The article is full of how the damned Jihadhi feels...not a word about the poor trooper killed by him. It makes me sick. My suggestion; no more Prisoners of War...they were all 'shot while trying to escape'.



JUDGE SUSPENDS GITMO TRIAL


A\P GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – A judge on Wednesday quickly granted President Barack Obama's request to suspend the war crimes trial of a young Canadian in what may be the beginning of the end for the Bush administration's system of trying alleged terrorists.


The judge, Army Col. Patrick Parrish, issued a one-sentence written order for the 120-day continuance, without even holding a hearing on the question. Another judge was expected to rule later Wednesday on a similar motion to suspend the trial of five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Prosecutors submitted the motions just hours after Obama's inauguration at the direction of the president and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
U.S. military prosecutor Clay Trivett said all pending cases should be suspended because a review of the military commissions system may result in significant changes. Obama has said he will close Guantanamo and many expect he will scrap the special war crimes court and direct that cases be prosecuted in the U.S.
The 120-day suspension "has the practical effect of stopping the process, probably forever," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, Omar Khadr's defense lawyer.
Khadr, a Toronto native, faces charges that include supporting terrorism and murder for allegedly killing U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer of Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a grenade during a 2002 battle in Afghanistan when he was 15.
Khadr, the son of an alleged al-Qaida militant who was slain by Pakistani forces in 2003, has faced up to life in prison if convicted by the military commission. His lawyer says he should now be prosecuted, if at all, in a civilian court, though he would prefer that be repatriated to Canada.
"He is anxious. He doesn't know what's going to happen, none of us knows what's going to happen," Kuebler said after discussing the delay with the 22-year-old prisoner. "But we are all hopeful and somewhat optimistic that this ruling now creates a space for the two governments to do something constructive to solve this case."
War crimes charges are pending against 21 men being held at Guantanamo, including the five charged with murder and other crimes in the Sept. 11 case. Before Obama became president, the U.S. had said it planned to try dozens of detainees in a system created by former President George W. Bush and Congress in 2006.
Relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, who were at the base this week to observe pretrial hearings, told reporters they oppose any delay. But human rights groups and others welcomed the development.
Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights program at the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was a positive step but "the president's order leaves open the option of this discredited system remaining in existence."
The decision was also welcomed by the European Union, which repeatedly criticized the Bush administration over alleged human rights abuses at Guantanamo as well as for the military commissions.
The European Commission "has been very pleased that one of the first actions of Mr. Obama has been to turn the page on this sad episode of Guantanamo," said Michele Cercone, spokesman for the EU Justice and Home Affairs Commission.Guantanamo Bay operates in violation of the Geneva Convention, it SHOULD be closed, the new Administration SHOULD suspend any action in process there and all prisoners SHOULD be re-classified, moved to U.S. soil and tried as prisoners of war.

It has nothing to do with this one prisoner mouse, it's all about operating in a way that is not illegal or immoral in the eyes of the entire world, as we have done under the Bush Administration. The prisoner isn't getting away with anything and the families hurt by the prisoner aren't being denied justice at all. Justice will be meted out in a way that can't be questioned or overturned at a later date.

[footballbat]

Guantanamo Bay operates in violation of the Geneva Convention, it SHOULD be closed, the new Administration SHOULD suspend any action in process there and all prisoners SHOULD be re-classified, moved to U.S. soil and tried as prisoners of war.

How exactly does the detention center at Gitmo operate in violation of the Geneva Convention?

Here is a link to the UN's Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights page detailing the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Please read through that, and point out the parts that detention at Gitmo is in violation of.

[Willow]

I'm too lazy to research and type it all out. Here's what wiki has on Gitmo (and I'm sure there are countless other sources, look for yourself):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp


Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29) began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-8) More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them.
Three have been convicted of various charges:


David Hicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks) was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-10)
Salim Hamdan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Hamdan) took a job as chauffeur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauffeur) driving Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-11)
Ali al-Bahlul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Bahlul) made a video celebrating the attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing) on the USS Cole (DDG-67) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_%28DDG-67%29)Template:WP Ships USS instances (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WP_Ships_USS_instances&action=edit&redlink=1).

Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.





Criticism

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Amnesty-gitmo-cell-miami-3.jpg/180px-Amnesty-gitmo-cell-miami-3.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amnesty-gitmo-cell-miami-3.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amnesty-gitmo-cell-miami-3.jpg)
Amnesty International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International) protests the detentions using a mock cell and prison outfits


European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) members and the Organization of American States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States), as well as non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, have protested the legal status and physical condition of detainees at Guantánamo. The human rights organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO) Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) has criticized the Bush administration over this designation in its 2003 world report, stating: "Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.) has ignored human rights standards in its own treatment of terrorism suspects. It has refused to apply the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war from Afghanistan, and has misused the designation of 'illegal combatant' to apply to criminal suspects on U.S. soil." On May 25, 2005, Amnesty International released its annual report calling the facility the "gulag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag) of our times".[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-47) [49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-48) Lord Steyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_van_Zyl_Steyn) called it "a monstrous failure of justice," because "... The military will act as interrogators, prosecutors and defense counsel, judges, and when death sentences are imposed, as executioners. The trials will be held in private. None of the guarantees of a fair trial need be observed." [50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-49)
Another senior British Judge, Justice Collins, said of the detention centre: "America's idea of what is torture is not the same as the United Kingdom's."[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-50)At the beginning of December 2003, there were media reports that military lawyers appointed to defend alleged terrorists being held by the United States at Guantánamo Bay had expressed concern about the legal process for military commissions. The Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian) newspaper from the United Kingdom[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-51) reported that a team of lawyers was dismissed after complaining that the rules for the forthcoming military commissions prohibited them from properly representing their clients. New York's Vanity Fair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_Fair_%28magazine%29) reported that some of the lawyers felt their ethical obligations were being violated by the process. The Pentagon strongly denied the claims in these media reports. It was reported on May 5, 2007, that many lawyers were sent back and some detainees refuse to see their lawyers, while others decline mail from their lawyers or refuse to provide them information on their cases.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-52)
The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) and other newspapers are critical of the camp; columnist Thomas Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman) urged George W. Bush to "just shut it down", calling Camp Delta "... worse than an embarrassment."[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-53) Another New York Times editorial supported Friedman's proposal, arguing that Guantánamo is part of "... a chain of shadowy detention camps that includes Abu Ghraib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib) in Iraq, the military prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_prison) at Bagram Air Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_Air_Base) in Afghanistan and other secret locations run by the intelligence agencies" which are "part of a tightly linked global detention system with no accountability in law."[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-54)

[footballbat]

If it's on Wikipedia, it must be true. :rolleyes2:

[Willow]

Damn, I actually did begin responding, Article by Article, how Gitmo operates in violation to the Geneva Convention, and do you know what I found? First, by not classifying the detainees correctly, the U.S. is in violation. "Enemy Combatants" is not recognized by the U.N. as far as I could tell. However, "Hostages" is.

If the detainees were classified as prisoners-of-war, nearly ALL of the provisions have been violated.

Whether we like it or not, all prisoners should be treated as we would want our men & women treated if they were captured.

[Willow]

If it's on Wikipedia, it must be true. :rolleyes2:If you believe the U.S. IS operating Gitmo in compliance, why don't YOU prove it? Show me a source, ANY SOURCE, which supports that.

[footballbat]

If you believe the U.S. IS operating Gitmo in compliance, why don't YOU prove it? Show me a source, ANY SOURCE, which supports that.

I did.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Please read through that, and point out the parts that detention at Gitmo is in violation of.

I read nothing in there that points to violation. The detainees are given shelter, they're allowed to pray, they're provided with a muslim approved diet. They're also given medical care which is better than most US citizens receive.

http://freedomsadvocate.com/files/ref/Miniter-ALM-NoneDareCallThemPrisoners-2007.pdf

[Willow]

When will they be tried? Are conditions there the same when there are visitors and when no one's around? Why isn't the Red Cross allowed to be there? Why are the 400 or so who are slated to be released still there and how long have they been there? Why were they sent there in the first place?

ONLY 3 OF THE DETAINEES HELD THERE SINCE 2002 HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE ACTUAL TERRORISTS.

I'm glad it's being shut down. It's an embarrassment to this country and one of the many reasons the rest of the world has looked down their noses at the U.S. over the last eight years.

[PlaneswalkerX]

I'm glad it's being shut down. It's an embarrassment to this country and one of the many reasons the rest of the world has looked down their noses at the U.S. over the last eight years.

I agree with that part. Whether it's operating by the law or not, closing it down will send a positive message to the rest of the world.

[footballbat]

Oh no!!! The rest of the world looks down there noses at us!! Whatever shall we do?!?

Do you think other countries (other than France) give a shit about the way "the rest of the world" looks at them? Do you think Russia gave a shit about world opinion when they had their tiff with Georgia?

Fuck world opinion. The US needs to be worried about what's good for the US, and not worry about whether people like us.

If you want to live someplace that's like the rest of the world, kindly fuck off, and move there. :fu:

[Willow]

You have no concern for how the rest of the planet views this country??

That's fine, at least you aren't running the country, cuz we've seen over the last eight years how that attitude has eroded the U.S.'s relations worldwide, haven't we?

[Tilly]

I'm with fbb in the sense that we should not give a fuck with what the rest of the world thinks of us. They can take us as we are, and we shouldn't have to put on any retarded appearances to change that. We as a country should be doing what WE think is right, not anyone else. If other countries want to agree or disagree with the way we do things, that's all on them. It is nice to be in good relations with other countries, but we shouldn't become a bunch of pussies to do it.

Hate me for who I am instead of loving me for who I am not.

[footballbat]

Oh no!!! The rest of the world looks down there noses at us!! Whatever shall we do?!?

You stupid moron! It's not there, it's THEIR. :mad:

[Tilly]

You stupid moron! It's not there, it's THEIR. :mad:

Cool, let me know how that works out for you.

[footballbat]

Cool, let me know how that works out for you.

I think you should give that asshole an infraction for a PA outside the fight room.

[Willow]

I'm with fbb in the sense that we should not give a fuck with what the rest of the world thinks of us. They can take us as we are, and we shouldn't have to put on any retarded appearances to change that. We as a country should be doing what WE think is right, not anyone else. If other countries want to agree or disagree with the way we do things, that's all on them. It is nice to be in good relations with other countries, but we shouldn't become a bunch of pussies to do it.

Hate me for who I am instead of loving me for who I am not.
Uh huh, and take me as I am (now where have i seen that before?).

World opinion of the U.S. is incredibly important when it comes to financial aid (where do you think all the money the U.S. is spending comes from??), military backing, and humanitarian aid should another massive disaster occur in the U.S.

Those who hate us will say "Fuck off" when we need help.

Notice I said "when," not "if."

[Tilly]

Uh huh, and take me as I am (now where have i seen that before?).

Hence, if that really is your own belief, you should apply it to everything.

World opinion of the U.S. is incredibly important when it comes to financial aid (where do you think all the money the U.S. is spending comes from??), military backing, and humanitarian aid should another massive disaster occur in the U.S.

Those who hate us will say "Fuck off" when we need help.

Notice I said "when," not "if."

So we've been getting financial aid even when our world opinion was low? Cool.

It's regrettable for other nations to say "Fuck off" when we need help, but that doesn't make bending to other nations' wills any more righteous.

We throw more money into humanitarian aid than any other country, helping countless lives without any reward. If other countries want to say "Fuck off" just because of a few suspected terrorists, then maybe they're the ones who should fuck off.

[PlaneswalkerX]

Oh no!!! The rest of the world looks down there noses at us!! Whatever shall we do?!?

Do you think other countries (other than France) give a shit about the way "the rest of the world" looks at them? Do you think Russia gave a shit about world opinion when they had their tiff with Georgia?

Fuck world opinion. The US needs to be worried about what's good for the US, and not worry about whether people like us.

If you want to live someplace that's like the rest of the world, kindly fuck off, and move there. :fu:

Fuck off and move there? LOL. Why don't you take your own advice since our new President happens to agree with me? Obama is concerned about how the rest of the world views us, so I don't have to move anywhere. :fu:

Like Willow said, we've already seen how the "fuck everyone else" attitude has worked for America for the past 8 years. We need the cooperation of other countries and it's a lot easier to do that when your not being a hypocrite. That's why George W Bush looked like an idiot when he called for Russia to pull out of Georgia because they invaded a sovereign state. Since you like the Russian attitude so much, maybe you should fuck off and move there.

[footballbat]

I'm not moving anywhere. As is my right as a voting American citizen, I'm going to stay here and bitch about how Obama is wiping his ass with the Constitution.

If, however, he does away with the silly notion of a "living constitution", and manages to pull the country back into the right direction, I'll give credit where credit is due.

[PlaneswalkerX]

I'm not moving anywhere. As is my right as a voting American citizen, I'm going to stay here and bitch about how Obama is wiping his ass with the Constitution.

If, however, he does away with the silly notion of a "living constitution", and manages to pull the country back into the right direction, I'll give credit where credit is due.

LOL. Obama is wiping his ass with the constitution? Did you forget about the patriot act already? Ahh, forget it. This is exactly why I don't argue politics.

[mousewallrat]

I'm too lazy to research and type it all out. Here's what wiki has on Gitmo (and I'm sure there are countless other sources, look for yourself):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp


Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29) began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-8) More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them.
Three have been convicted of various charges:


David Hicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks) was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-10)
Salim Hamdan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Hamdan) took a job as chauffeur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauffeur) driving Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-11)
Ali al-Bahlul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Bahlul) made a video celebrating the attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing) on the USS Cole (DDG-67) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_%28DDG-67%29)Template:WP Ships USS instances (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WP_Ships_USS_instances&action=edit&redlink=1).

Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.





Criticism

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Amnesty-gitmo-cell-miami-3.jpg/180px-Amnesty-gitmo-cell-miami-3.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amnesty-gitmo-cell-miami-3.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amnesty-gitmo-cell-miami-3.jpg)
Amnesty International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International) protests the detentions using a mock cell and prison outfits


European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) members and the Organization of American States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States), as well as non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, have protested the legal status and physical condition of detainees at Guantánamo. The human rights organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO) Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) has criticized the Bush administration over this designation in its 2003 world report, stating: "Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.) has ignored human rights standards in its own treatment of terrorism suspects. It has refused to apply the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war from Afghanistan, and has misused the designation of 'illegal combatant' to apply to criminal suspects on U.S. soil." On May 25, 2005, Amnesty International released its annual report calling the facility the "gulag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag) of our times".[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-47) [49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-48) Lord Steyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_van_Zyl_Steyn) called it "a monstrous failure of justice," because "... The military will act as interrogators, prosecutors and defense counsel, judges, and when death sentences are imposed, as executioners. The trials will be held in private. None of the guarantees of a fair trial need be observed." [50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-49)
Another senior British Judge, Justice Collins, said of the detention centre: "America's idea of what is torture is not the same as the United Kingdom's."[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-50)At the beginning of December 2003, there were media reports that military lawyers appointed to defend alleged terrorists being held by the United States at Guantánamo Bay had expressed concern about the legal process for military commissions. The Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian) newspaper from the United Kingdom[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-51) reported that a team of lawyers was dismissed after complaining that the rules for the forthcoming military commissions prohibited them from properly representing their clients. New York's Vanity Fair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_Fair_%28magazine%29) reported that some of the lawyers felt their ethical obligations were being violated by the process. The Pentagon strongly denied the claims in these media reports. It was reported on May 5, 2007, that many lawyers were sent back and some detainees refuse to see their lawyers, while others decline mail from their lawyers or refuse to provide them information on their cases.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-52)
The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) and other newspapers are critical of the camp; columnist Thomas Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman) urged George W. Bush to "just shut it down", calling Camp Delta "... worse than an embarrassment."[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-53) Another New York Times editorial supported Friedman's proposal, arguing that Guantánamo is part of "... a chain of shadowy detention camps that includes Abu Ghraib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib) in Iraq, the military prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_prison) at Bagram Air Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_Air_Base) in Afghanistan and other secret locations run by the intelligence agencies" which are "part of a tightly linked global detention system with no accountability in law."[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-54)
I can't believe you are too lazy to read FBB's article, yet you cut and paste something and insist we read it, and that you know what's right. LOL, that's rich. I love being lectured to by hypocrites. Why not just tell us to STFU, and that any opinion that differs with yours is wrong, stupid, and invalid?

[mousewallrat]

At any rate, we just got rid of one unpopular asshole that wouldn't listen to anyone else, I don't want to trade him for a popular asshole that won't listen to anyone else. Why wouldn't there even be any discussion about the matter? That's what troubles me....ruling by decree, and not concensus. The ability to control both houses and the Presidency is what got the Republicrats in trouble. They went crazy mad with POWER, and got thrown out on their asses for their troubles. Will we be seeing the same thing from the Dems too?

[footballbat]

I find it hilarious, that, in the tiny mind of an Obamaniac, disdain for Obama, equates unequivocal support for Bush, and all things Republican.

I think that the Patriot Act is one of the most egregious usurpations of Constitutional rights since "Honest" Abe shat upon habeas corpus. Of course, I'm smart enough to know that the Dems and Repubs, who were in Congress at the time and voted for it's passage, bear responsibility for the passage of that travesty.

[Willow]

I can't believe you are too lazy to read FBB's article, yet you cut and paste something and insist we read it, and that you know what's right. LOL, that's rich. I love being lectured to by hypocrites. Why not just tell us to STFU, and that any opinion that differs with yours is wrong, stupid, and invalid?
What the hell are you talking about??? FBB didn't post an article, he posted a link to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of war.

I read it, it's incredibly long-did you look at it mouse or are you just taking pot shots at me?

Had I answered FBB's question as I had started to, Article by Article, section by section, sub-section by sub-section, my reply would have been tl;dr. Instead, click the damn link yourself or read the abbreviated text i posted from wiki.

Take your pick, or, as you prefer, just hurl blind insults at me, I am at your disposal.

[Willow]

At any rate, we just got rid of one unpopular asshole that wouldn't listen to anyone else, I don't want to trade him for a popular asshole that won't listen to anyone else. Why wouldn't there even be any discussion about the matter? That's what troubles me....ruling by decree, and not concensus. The ability to control both houses and the Presidency is what got the Republicrats in trouble. They went crazy mad with POWER, and got thrown out on their asses for their troubles. Will we be seeing the same thing from the Dems too?
I believe the concensus has spoken, hence the change from a Republican administration to a Democratic one.

[Raidenator]

I haven't had the time to read through all of this crap so let me just spew out my bullshit.

It's only been suspended until April so that the Obama administration can get a handle on the situation and look into the case. It's not likely that anyone will be let off the hook that easily.

That said, I'm glad they're shutting down Gitmo. That place is a shit sandwich. Not only that, but the Bush administration has admitted to torture there. Water boarding, extreme cold, and slapping(?) to name a few. In fact, many people were even calling to try members of the Bush administration for war crimes but Obama has said that no action will be taken against his administration.

[footballbat]

Did you know that certain members of the armed forces (SEALS, Special Ops, pilots, etc...), whose jobs put them at greater risk for capture, have to go through a school in which they are water boarded, made to endure extreme cold, and other unpleasantness?

Did you know that if one of these people are captured, they will probably end up enduring much worse than water boarding?

If they aren't killed outright, they will be tortured to death. It will be real torture, too, not just having their heads dunked under water, or the thermostat turned down while they get sprayed with water and deprived of sleep.

[Big Ozzie]

If you believe the U.S. IS operating Gitmo in compliance, why don't YOU prove it? Show me a source, ANY SOURCE, which supports that.

Personally, I don't Give a Fuck WHAT they do to the Prisoners or "Detainees" if you prefer. This is a War against Terrorism and those who Condone, Support or Participate in it.
If it means one of these Bastards needs to be Water Board to find out Information that will stop an attack or SAVE Human Lives....SO BE IT
!!!!
Has ANY of the Countries that do support or have supported Terrorism ever Signed the Geneva Convention?
Why should it apply to our Prisoners or Detainees when all they would do is wipe their Ass with it if they had the chance!
Until the different sides all play by the same rules...it is every team for themselves!
FUCK WORLD OPINION!!!

[crazyjoe]

Did you know that certain members of the armed forces (SEALS, Special Ops, pilots, etc...), whose jobs put them at greater risk for capture, have to go through a school in which they are water boarded, made to endure extreme cold, and other unpleasantness?

Did you know that if one of these people are captured, they will probably end up enduring much worse than water boarding?

If they aren't killed outright, they will be tortured to death. It will be real torture, too, not just having their heads dunked under water, or the thermostat turned down while they get sprayed with water and deprived of sleep.

our enemies at the moment are extremist militant groups..should the United States of America treat prisoners like they do?

[crazyjoe]

the sooner we start chopping off heads the better

[footballbat]

our enemies at the moment are extremist militant groups..should the United States of America treat prisoners like they do?

No, I don't, and that was my point. We don't treat prisoners the way they do.

[Raidenator]

Did you know that certain members of the armed forces (SEALS, Special Ops, pilots, etc...), whose jobs put them at greater risk for capture, have to go through a school in which they are water boarded, made to endure extreme cold, and other unpleasantness?

Did you know that if one of these people are captured, they will probably end up enduring much worse than water boarding?

If they aren't killed outright, they will be tortured to death. It will be real torture, too, not just having their heads dunked under water, or the thermostat turned down while they get sprayed with water and deprived of sleep.

Sorry FBB, but the armed forces has nothing to do with this argument. Just because our soldiers are trained to withstand torture, doesn't mean we can do the same things to the prisoners.

Our soldiers CHOOSE to go into those special forces groups. Now, you could argue that the extremists CHOOSE to fight against the U.S. but that's not the point.

We're supposed to treat our prisoners civilly. We are one of, if not the world's greatest super power. We have to set a precedent for the rest of the world. If we're not going to follow the rules that WE have set in the United Nations, then who the fuck else will?

They may torture our soldiers, sure. Murderers kill people, that doesn't mean that I have the right to go out and chop his legs off. By that I mean, just because water boarding isn't as heinous as what they'd do, doesn't mean we should do it.

I used to believe that mild torture would be ok too. I've long since changed my mind of that notion. If there's one thing I've learned in my years, it's respect. We need to have respect for everyone despite them being our enemies or not.

[footballbat]

Sorry FBB, but the armed forces has nothing to do with this argument. Just because our soldiers are trained to withstand torture, doesn't mean we can do the same things to the prisoners.

Our soldiers CHOOSE to go into those special forces groups. Now, you could argue that the extremists CHOOSE to fight against the U.S. but that's not the point.

We're supposed to treat our prisoners civilly. We are one of, if not the world's greatest super power. We have to set a precedent for the rest of the world. If we're not going to follow the rules that WE have set in the United Nations, then who the fuck else will?

They may torture our soldiers, sure. Murderers kill people, that doesn't mean that I have the right to go out and chop his legs off. By that I mean, just because water boarding isn't as heinous as what they'd do, doesn't mean we should do it.

I used to believe that mild torture would be ok too. I've long since changed my mind of that notion. If there's one thing I've learned in my years, it's respect. We need to have respect for everyone despite them being our enemies or not.

My point is that water boarding is NOT torture.

[Raidenator]

My point is that water boarding is NOT torture.

Making someone feel as though they're an inch away from death isn't torture?

[footballbat]

Nope. Unpleasant and scary, but not torture.

edit - Cutting a slit in someone's abdomen, and using a long pair of forceps to play with their intestines... that's torture.

[mousewallrat]

Guantanamo Bay operates in violation of the Geneva Convention, it SHOULD be closed, the new Administration SHOULD suspend any action in process there and all prisoners SHOULD be re-classified, moved to U.S. soil and tried as prisoners of war.

It has nothing to do with this one prisoner mouse, it's all about operating in a way that is not illegal or immoral in the eyes of the entire world, as we have done under the Bush Administration. The prisoner isn't getting away with anything and the families hurt by the prisoner aren't being denied justice at all. Justice will be meted out in a way that can't be questioned or overturned at a later date.
My 'pot shot' at you is for making a statement, then admitting to being too apathetic to back it up, to consider that you might be wrong, or to look into that possibility. Sorry Willow, but that's drinking the Kool-aid. The rest of it is only your opinion, but I'm too lazy and can't be bothered to respond to that, or to consider if any of it might be true or accurate.

[Willow]

My 'pot shot' at you is for making a statement, then admitting to being too apathetic to back it up, to consider that you might be wrong, or to look into that possibility. Sorry Willow, but that's drinking the Kool-aid. The rest of it is only your opinion, but I'm too lazy and can't be bothered to respond to that, or to consider if any of it might be true or accurate.
What are you not understanding?? And when have I EVER been apathetic??

That Gitmo has operated outside the provisions of the Geneva Convention is a widely accepted fact. Bush himself acknowledged that and defended it by saying they were enemy combatants not prisoners of war therefore not subject to the U.N.'s provisions.

Are you being deliberately obtuse to bait me or is your ignorance genuine????

[Willow]

My point is that water boarding is NOT torture.Hmmm.... I think maybe you should be waterboarded to be certain. After all, only someone who has experienced it knows if it's torture or not.

[Raidenator]

Nope. Unpleasant and scary, but not torture.

edit - Cutting a slit in someone's abdomen, and using a long pair of forceps to play with their intestines... that's torture.

Let me ask you this then FBB, how would YOU define torture? I don't mean by the dictionary. I mean your very own definition.

If you ask me, torture is anything that is purposefully inflicting some sort of injury to an individual for the reason of information. There are numerous ways to define this, but that's how I feel about it. Let me add something that I just found, I can provide links if needed.

"Under the United Nations Torture Convention of 1984, torture involves intentional infliction of pain, by a public official, to obtain information.

The full definition of torture in the convention is: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.'"

It goes on to say that it permits lawful sanction of certain acts, to permit the death penalty.

Let me ask you this, if water boarding isn't torture, why don't we use it in our judicial system? It certainly may coerce a suspect into confessing his guilt.

Let me add this, because the article goes on to say this afterwards, and I think it helps.

"The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture defines torture more broadly. It includes the "use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish"."

[footballbat]

After all, only someone who has experienced it knows if it's torture or not.

You are correct. Waterboarding does suck. It's not torture, though.

To me, torture is having your fingertips smashed with a hammer, or someone applying a blowtorch to your bare skin. Maybe even having to listen to Soulja Boy all the way through once.

Having water poured over your face, while tied to a board, by people who aren't allowed to kill you, that's not torture. Scary as hell, but not torture.

Like my dad used to tell me when I'd get hurt, "it feels good when it quits hurting."

[footballbat]

Let me ask you this then FBB, how would YOU define torture? I don't mean by the dictionary. I mean your very own definition.

Torture is anything which causes grievous bodily harm and/or excruciating pain. Basically, that which may kill you, or cause you to have a non-functioning body part.

Discomfort is not torture, it's just uncomfortable.

[Willow]

Torture is anything which causes grievous bodily harm and/or excruciating pain. Basically, that which may kill you, or cause you to have a non-functioning body part.

Discomfort is not torture, it's just uncomfortable.
Do you know specifically how waterboarding is carried out? Please describe it to us so we may understand how you believe it not to be torture,

[footballbat]

Do you know specifically how waterboarding is carried out?

Yes, I do.

Please describe it to us so we may understand how you believe it not to be torture,

If you haven't figured out by now why I don't think it's torture, then no further explanations will help.

[mousewallrat]

What are you not understanding?? And when have I EVER been apathetic??

That Gitmo has operated outside the provisions of the Geneva Convention is a widely accepted fact. Bush himself acknowledged that and defended it by saying they were enemy combatants not prisoners of war therefore not subject to the U.N.'s provisions.

Are you being deliberately obtuse to bait me or is your ignorance genuine????
Oh yes, the 'popular opinion' gambit.....I seem to remember another popular opinion in the late 30's and early 40's that Jews were subhumans and something needed to be done about them. That was a widely accepted fact. Then there were those people that burned women as witches...and that was a widely accepted fact. Flat Earth? Another widely accepted fact.Those people were equally certain of their opinion as you and your Leftist comrades are. I see nothing in the Geneva COnventions that makes these people 'Prisoners of War'. Help us out here Willow. Point to the section, cuz I couldn't find it. We're talking legalities, but then that's what the Law is. You say it's illegal, I say it isn't, from what I can see. Show us where we're wrong.

[Loki520]

Not only that, but the Bush administration has admitted to torture there. Water boarding, extreme cold, and slapping(?) to name a few. In fact, many people were even calling to try members of the Bush administration for war crimes but Obama has said that no action will be taken against his administration.


Well, your gonna love this..

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090121/D95RQKDG0.html

"...

At least two more executive orders are expected in coming days, according to two Obama officials.

One official said the first will require all U.S. personnel to follow the U.S. Army Field Manual while questioning detainees. The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding, which creates the sensation of drowning and has been termed a form of torture by critics.
The second order will set up a study of interrogation methods that could be added to the Army manual, including some that may be more aggressive than those currently permitted."

[Raidenator]

Torture is anything which causes grievous bodily harm and/or excruciating pain. Basically, that which may kill you, or cause you to have a non-functioning body part.

Discomfort is not torture, it's just uncomfortable.

I would have to disagree with you there FBB. Having a rock in your shoe is discomfort. Bringing a man to the brink of death, in my opinion, is torture.

I believe the mental anguish is just as bad as the physical pain. The point of torture isn't for the person to feel pain necessarily, the point is for them to not want to go through the torture again. Whether or not the U.S. can actually kill this person, is a different matter altogether. I don't think those guys are sitting there thinking, "Oh well they can't kill me, and this isn't really so bad. So I'll be ok. I don't need to tell them anything." That defeats the point. If that were the case, it almost defeats the purpose of water boarding even more.

In short, I believe the mental anguish caused by the torture can be just as bad.

Let's take this for instance. One of their soldiers is captured. He is tortured by electrocution. Is this considered torture?

Let's look at it from your definition.

Physical pain - Yes
Can it kill you - Yes
Loss of body part - No.

Will they kill the electrocutee? No. But then again, even in other countries, the aim is not to kill the person. It's to gain information.

So given this case of electrocution, torture or not?

[footballbat]

Physical pain - Yes
Can it kill you - Yes
Loss of body part - No.

Will they kill the electrocutee? No. But then again, even in other countries, the aim is not to kill the person. It's to gain information.

So given this case of electrocution, torture or not?

Hmmm, I don't know. Judging by my past answer, with a very important word bolded, what do you think?

Torture is anything which causes grievous bodily harm and/or excruciating pain. Basically, that which may kill you, or cause you to have a non-functioning body part.

Discomfort is not torture, it's just uncomfortable.

If you notice, I only mention ending up with a non-functioning body part. Electrocution can cause nerve damage, which can lead to paralysis, so your little game of gotcha fails.

[BillZBubb]

My suggestion; no more Prisoners of War...they were all 'shot while trying to escape'.



Thats been my position ever since the bleeding hearts started whining about waterboarding (which causes NO physical harm, but operates instead upon primal instinct, and fear) of terrorists. (Torture, for purposes of intel gathering, DOES work very well as a matter of fact) The protections for POW's under the Articles of the Geneva Convention apply only to those in Uniform Garb. Combatants under arms in civilian garb are considered, by international law, to be sabotuers or spies, and are war criminals. They are legally subject to summary execution upon capture. The very purpose of that distinction between uniform and non-uniform combatants is to make it easier to distinguish between combatants and innocent civilians, thus providing greater protection for non-combatants.

If they are going to be of no value to us in intelligence, then there is no value in taking them prisoner at all. Time for us to give them as much quarter as they give ours.. which is none at all. Killing the enemy is always much easier and safer than taking them prisoner. If there is nothing to gain from taking prisoners, then there is no reason to run the inherent risks.

[Willow]

Thats been my position ever since the bleeding hearts started whining about waterboarding (which causes NO physical harm, but operates instead upon primal instinct, and fear) of terrorists. (Torture, for purposes of intel gathering, DOES work very well as a matter of fact) The protections for POW's under the Articles of the Geneva Convention apply only to those in Uniform Garb. Combatants under arms in civilian garb are considered, by international law, to be sabotuers or spies, and are war criminals. They are legally subject to summary execution upon capture. The very purpose of that distinction between uniform and non-uniform combatants is to make it easier to distinguish between combatants and innocent civilians, thus providing greater protection for non-combatants.

If they are going to be of no value to us in intelligence, then there is no value in taking them prisoner at all. Time for us to give them as much quarter as they give ours.. which is none at all. Killing the enemy is always much easier and safer than taking them prisoner. If there is nothing to gain from taking prisoners, then there is no reason to run the inherent risks.
WHAT??? BULLSHIT!!! Show me where I missed that Bill:

Article 4
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.
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.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Edit: I believe number 2d covers the "detainees."

[JooX]

WHAT??? BULLSHIT!!! Show me where I missed that Bill:

Article 4
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.
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.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Edit: I believe number 2d covers the "detainees."

I'll lend you my glasses if you like. ;)

[Tilly]

WHAT??? BULLSHIT!!! Show me where I missed that Bill:

Article 4
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.
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.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Edit: I believe number 2d covers the "detainees."

I'm not going with either way for certain, but that's open to interpretation. Let's break it down rule by rule.

1. Well insurgents obviously aren't a member of any armed forces.

2. The interpretation lies in whether insurgents are considered in "militias" or "volunteer corps." Both terms allude to actual military involvement, and you can argue that insurgent activity is not military involvement. The subtext rules do not state that those conditions are what classify someone as a militia or volunteer corps. They state that an existing militia or volunteer corps must follow ALL of those conditions. Even if insurgency is considered one of those two categories, they clearly violate 2b, 2d (I don't see how you think 2d covers the detainees when the circumstances leading to their capture didn't have anything to do with it), and usually 2c. So this one's a little sketchy. You can only argue that you interpret it to mean something else, but you can't declare with certainty that it means what you say it means.

3. Once again, insurgents are not in any armed forces.

4. They're not with any armed forces.

5. They don't crew any civil vehicles.

6. Well generally, insurgents usually do come from a non-occupied territory...as in outside of Iraq, but we know that we didn't approach them, and they didn't spontaneously pick up their guns.

So yeah, you CAN actually argue that insurgents do not fall under the Geneva Convention.

[Willow]

And that's exactly how the Bush Administration interpreted it. We can all pick and choose lines that apply or exclude can't we. The argument then is whether ALL or ANY of the provisions must be met.

So tell me this, if you choose to not classify the detainees as prisoners of war by interpreting the provisions that way, how do they not fall under the classification of HOSTAGES. They are being held for an indefinite length of time with no contact to the outside world and most with no charged being leveled against them.

[Tilly]

And that's exactly how the Bush Administration interpreted it. We can all pick and choose lines that apply or exclude can't we. The argument then is whether ALL or ANY of the provisions must be met.

As long as it's a legal way of interpreting it, you can't dispute the legality of it. You can only dispute the morality of it, so just stick to that.

So tell me this, if you choose to not classify the detainees as prisoners of war by interpreting the provisions that way, how do they not fall under the classification of HOSTAGES. They are being held for an indefinite length of time with no contact to the outside world and most with no charged being leveled against them.

I dunno, you can just call them prisoners or detainees. I'm sure they have a specific term for it. Either way, you're trying to argue legality again, which isn't really going to work in your favor in this one, unless a judge presiding over the legality of the issue agrees with you.

EDIT: You can't really call them hostages, because to be a hostage, you have to be trying to get something from another party whom you're not detaining in exchange for the hostage's security. They would be hostages if we took them and said "stop suicide bombing us or we'll kill these detainees."

[footballbat]

WHAT??? BULLSHIT!!! Show me where I missed that Bill:

Article 4
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.
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.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Edit: I believe number 2d covers the "detainees."

Actually, Section 2, a-d, covers the detainees. If you read carefully what it says, you'll see that it applies to those who fulfill those conditions. They may have a, but without b-d, it's a moot point.

[mousewallrat]

Gee Willow, I guess you got your ass handed to you. OH, if wishing could only make it so.........the True Believers would rule.

[JACKASS2010]

i love it when u all argue politics!! u also make a big racket when u get a new prez, that ceremony was insane!

over here it's like :

wednesday : old PM leaves

thursday : new PM moves in.

no fireworks,brass bands or none of that crap.
no need to spend 100 million on a party....

[Tilly]

i love it when u all argue politics!! u also make a big racket when u get a new prez, that ceremony was insane!

over here it's like :

wednesday : old PM leaves

thursday : new PM moves in.

no fireworks,brass bands or none of that crap.
no need to spend 100 million on a party....

Do PMs campaign like our candidates do? I guess it's because of all the buildup of the campaigning, coupled with issues the public (or at least the media) cares about being addressed.

People went especially crazy over Obama this time around, though.

[jaba]

I agree with that part. Whether it's operating by the law or not, closing it down will send a positive message to the rest of the world.:thumb:

sq1Zvk_DnXA

[footballbat]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/ed/Torturedlogicx1.gif

[jaba]

This one is for all those Yanky right-wing nutters who have posted thus far. :smokin:

UWiLBjhmyPk

[sib]

3 squares a day including fresh fruit, I hear Freddie and Fanny are booking the place for their next corporate retreat to save a few taxpayer dollars.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/breakfast-club-gitmo.jpg

[BillZBubb]

LOL, well I was about to hammer her on it, but then I see that the rest of you have that covered pretty well.


You can't really call them hostages, because to be a hostage, you have to be trying to get something from another party whom you're not detaining in exchange for the hostage's security. They would be hostages if we took them and said "stop suicide bombing us or we'll kill these detainees."

We have a winner!

[Willow]

As long as it's a legal way of interpreting it, you can't dispute the legality of it. You can only dispute the morality of it, so just stick to that.



I dunno, you can just call them prisoners or detainees. I'm sure they have a specific term for it. Either way, you're trying to argue legality again, which isn't really going to work in your favor in this one, unless a judge presiding over the legality of the issue agrees with you.

EDIT: You can't really call them hostages, because to be a hostage, you have to be trying to get something from another party whom you're not detaining in exchange for the hostage's security. They would be hostages if we took them and said "stop suicide bombing us or we'll kill these detainees."

Actually, Section 2, a-d, covers the detainees. If you read carefully what it says, you'll see that it applies to those who fulfill those conditions. They may have a, but without b-d, it's a moot point.It no longer matters. Please refer to the President's Executive Orders here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/

As Mouse so eloquently put it, looks like you got your asses handed to you.

i love it when u all argue politics!! u also make a big racket when u get a new prez, that ceremony was insane!

over here it's like :

wednesday : old PM leaves

thursday : new PM moves in.

no fireworks,brass bands or none of that crap.
no need to spend 100 million on a party....Well, when your campaign has raised more money than it needed and is limited by law as to what it can be spent on... Jackass, I've never seen anything like it in my life either.

Do PMs campaign like our candidates do? I guess it's because of all the buildup of the campaigning, coupled with issues the public (or at least the media) cares about being addressed.

People went especially crazy over Obama this time around, though.I can make a few guesses as to why people have gone a bit nuts about a new President taking office. First, the economy and the endless war have dragged the collective American psyche into a pretty deep depression. A new Administration means a fresh start, new ideas and methods, and more importantly, promise of direct intervention to get shit sorted instead of the "wait it out" method (until criticism gets too strong anyway) of the last Administration. It's like a little sunbeam has broken through the dark cloud hanging over all our heads.

Second, and I don't give a shit who's sick of hearing it, Obama is not only the first black President, he's the first non-Caucasian to hold the office. Many of you live in other countries and won't easily understand the significance of that, hell, most Americans won't realize the significance, but this really is a big deal. His election is evidence of a major shift in public participation in the political process. How many members here said they would not vote at all if they didn't like either candidate? A lot of Americans feel that way, and it was evident this election when voter turnout was so high especially among non-white voters. Also, many ordinary people feel like they have something in common with Obama because he had a pretty ordinary start in life.

Third, never before has an outgoing Administration been so tolerant of an incoming Administration. To Bush's credit, he pretty much opened the oval office door and invited Obama in the day after the election. Not only has Bush been supportive, do you recall the luncheon a week or two ago with all the living Presidents (also never been done as I recall)? They all support Obama and his agendas.

LOL, well I was about to hammer her on it, but then I see that the rest of you have that covered pretty well.




We have a winner!LOL, was there a contest I'm unaware of? This is nothing more than a healthy debate where some of us might learn something new. It's a lot more interesting than discussing how high Josh is or how bored Jigga is dontcha think? Besides, if someone were to win, what would the prize be?

[JooX]

Derrr... the prize is always the Interwebz. Damn Noobs.

[Tilly]

It no longer matters. Please refer to the President's Executive Orders here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/

As Mouse so eloquently put it, looks like you got your asses handed to you.

Wow...it seems my argument flew way above your head. You pretty much just did this.

http://www.oswald.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/bunny-pancake.jpg

I can make a few guesses as to why people have gone a bit nuts about a new President taking office. blah blah blah ...... blah blah blah

http://3alleypub.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

LOL, was there a contest I'm unaware of? This is nothing more than a healthy debate where some of us might learn something new. It's a lot more interesting than discussing how high Josh is or how bored Jigga is dontcha think? Besides, if someone were to win, what would the prize be?

I agree with the healthy debate part, but I'm getting the funny impression that you think everyone else only has something new to learn from you.

[evil ernie]

so who's this obama guy i keep hearing about ....

[Borro]

I know why every has gone nuts around the world over Obama. He's the Anti-Christ. 2012...wait and see.

[Borro]

http://i347.photobucket.com/albums/p467/fienddocta/evilnigger.jpg

[jaba]

My suggestion; no more Prisoners of War...they were all 'shot while trying to escape'.Brilliant fucking solution - save them from torture.
You should remember that 90% of the Gitmo prisoners were non-combatants though, but hey, who gives a shittypoo?

How exactly does the detention center at Gitmo operate in violation of the Geneva Convention?You need to ask?
Try google. :thumb:

Personally, I don't Give a Fuck WHAT they do to the Prisoners or "Detainees"the sooner we start chopping off heads the betterwith a dull, rusty knife.. might i add.* starts whistling 'Star Spangled Banner' *

The second order will set up a study of interrogation methods that could be added to the Army manual, including some that may be more aggressive than those currently permitted."The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss the orders until they are released.I hope the above quote addresses your fucking malignant gloat.
It was lifted from the same link. :cool:

Killing the enemy is always much easier and safer than taking them prisoner. If there is nothing to gain from taking prisoners, then there is no reason to run the inherent risks.I bet you luurve the smell of napalm in the morning.
How about those bat shit 'Zippo Raids' man? You dig? You are full of it mate. :rofl:

25wLbTFtTvA

[Borro]

I think this is a shitty movie, but some good fucking quotes have came from it.

bPXVGQnJm0w


P.S.


http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj294/lyle169/bannerbeast.jpg

[JooX]

crazyjoe was being sarcastic..

and so was i but im more along the lines of what oz said. i dont see why we have to be the nice guys and play by the rules when no one else does...? i know theres a limit but the MOMENT we step outside the lines, the world calls foul.

remind me the last time we dragged a charred body of the enemy through the streets and sang and danced around the corpse? could you imagine what would happen if we pulled some shit like that in new york... if we took saddams body and dragged it through time square and video taped it. and sang this...Or5wUDApBc0


People would be all like... head banging n shit?


But yes, "we" should be held to a higher standard. When we start to losen our grip on what we hold to be the higher moral ground, then we just fall into their trap.

We should always hold ourselves to higher standards.

[Tilly]

People would be all like... head banging n shit?


But yes, "we" should be held to a higher standard. When we start to losen our grip on what we hold to be the higher moral ground, then we just fall into their trap.

We should always hold ourselves to higher standards.

I agree, but no one really wants to acknowledge the higher standards we hold anyway. It would just be nice if people appreciated more what we already do instead of slamming us at every chance. I think that's more the media's fault, though.

EDIT: What flyboy said. :D

[Borro]

Hey, jerkballz.

I'm saying Obama is the Anti-Christ. Nobody wants to hear your pseudo war stories. Fuck off.

[JooX]

our standards are still higher than theirs... thats my point.

much higher.
Yah... and it needs to stay that way. ;)

I agree, but no one really wants to acknowledge the higher standards we hold anyway. It would just be nice if people appreciated more what we already do instead of slamming us at every chance. I think that's more the media's fault, though.

EDIT: What flyboy said. :D

Do you ever feel strange when peple thank you for doing what is just normal to you? Manners and decorum wise? I know I do.
It should go un-noticed because it should be the norm.

But yes, the media loves to pour gallons of shit over everything to hype it up. They have not been held accountable enough for their actions for decades.

[Tilly]

Hey, jerkballz.

I'm saying Obama is the Anti-Christ. Nobody wants to hear your pseudo war stories. Fuck off.

http://mydogshavefleas.com/fleasblog/wp-content/gallery/misc-pics/cookiebunny.jpg

[Borro]

we already know he is. shut up.. theres no arguement there lol

ok then, nevermind. carry on. :rofl:

[Tilly]

Yah... and it needs to stay that way. ;)



Do you ever feel strange when peple thank you for doing what is just normal to you? Manners and decorum wise? I know I do.
It should go un-noticed because it should be the norm.

I dunno, I always appreciate when people thank me for holding a higher standard, especially when someone thanks me for the service I did. It really does give me a good feeling.

I don't agree that it should go unnoticed, because I think it's better for people to truly recognize how good they have it. It makes for a lot less crying, and a lot more calm and intelligent debate.

But yes, the media loves to pour gallons of shit over everything to hype it up. They have not been held accountable enough for their actions for decades.

Heh, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[Borro]

http://mydogshavefleas.com/fleasblog/wp-content/gallery/misc-pics/cookiebunny.jpg


Really? You can do better than that.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k133/mikoll_0/Oolong_last_head_performance.jpg


R.I.P. Oolong.

[JooX]

I dunno, I always appreciate when people thank me for holding a higher standard, especially when someone thanks me for the service I did. It really does give me a good feeling.



Heh, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.


And so they should, when you go above and beyond... Im talking about the general, day to day decency.


And DAMN straight. The truth could never be as exciting as the lie. :p

[footballbat]

How exactly does the detention center at Gitmo operate in violation of the Geneva Convention?
You need to ask?
Try google. :thumb:

I love how you pick and choose certain portions of a post. The following is the quote in it's entirety, with a link that I provided.

How exactly does the detention center at Gitmo operate in violation of the Geneva Convention?

Here is a link to the UN's Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights page detailing the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Please read through that, and point out the parts that detention at Gitmo is in violation of.

Apparently, I did google it, and came up with the Geneva Convention.

Here's the part that's pertinent to my question:

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, fulfill 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.


The "detainees" don't fulfill these conditions. :thumb:

[Borro]

*sniff sniff*

I smell a hint of sarcasm.

[footballbat]

*sniff sniff*

I smell a hint of sarcasm.

Nah, I just farted.

[jaba]

The "detainees" don't fulfill these conditions. :thumb:You are no fucking lawyer my friend.
Less than 10% of Gitmo prisoners are captured combatants so this is more a case for human rights, unnecessary rendition and malpractices which includes torture. These fucksticks should be tried in courts the world over and given appropriate punishment as the law allows. I'm in favour of getting these brain washed 'terrorist' cunts put away as much as you are. Pilger has a point where he says we are becoming terrorists ourselves due to our governments hypocracy and greed.

[footballbat]

You are no fucking lawyer my friend.
Less than 10% of Gitmo prisoners are captured combatants so this is more a case for human rights, unnecessary rendition and malpractices which includes torture. These fucksticks should be tried in courts the world over and given appropriate punishment as the law allows. I'm in favour of getting these brain washed 'terrorist' cunts put away as much as you are. Pilger has a point where he says we are becoming terrorists ourselves due to our governments hypocracy and greed.

Where did you get your law degree, Cambridge or Oxford?

Did you know that less than 10% of the people in most prisons are guilty? Ask them yourself, almost everybody in prison is innocent. Or. at least, they proclaim to be innocent.

[jaba]

Did you know that less than 10% of the people in most prisons are guilty? Ask them yourself, almost everybody in prison is innocent. Or. at least, they proclaim to be innocent.No need to render yourself as stupid. :cool:

[Raidenator]

Alright alright I'm sorry I missed out on a good deal of the argument by my absence. I haven't abandoned it though. I didn't get a chance to read through all of it, but I got the jist of it, at least in regards to my argument.

Ok FBB. I don't claim to know the effects of electrocution torture, so I'll let you have that it will remain torture for now. I may look into it later when I get the chance.

As for the UN post that I made, as I understand it that you've ruled out that applying to the insurgents because they don't count as an armed military force.

Let's assume that they don't. What do we call them then? If they're not a military force, and they're not prisoners of war, why are we detaining them? Apparently they have no real status within code of conduct right? Barring them being prisoners of war, that would mean they're simply prisoners of the U.S. correct?

So why are they being tortured? We don't torture murderers to get a confession. *Just ignore the fact that I call it torture, and look at the argument*

[Willow]

See, this is where FBB believes you and I are missing the point Raid - he believes whatever is happening at Gitmo isn't torture.

[Nanabunga]

I bet you luurve the smell of napalm in the morning.
How about those bat shit 'Zippo Raids' man? You dig? You are full of it mate.

I'm guessing this is your all to common mention of Vietnam and the napalm which was used there ? At least you're posting a different video in accompaniment this time around.

:smokin:

It seems that you've forgotten who taught the USA how to fire bomb innocent women and children ?

:thumb:

*snip*

A group of Lancasters from Bomber Command's 83 Squadron, No. 5 Group, acting as the Pathfinders or flare force, whose job it was to find Dresden and drop magnesium parachute flares to light up the area for the bombers. The next set of aircraft to leave England were the twin-engined Mosquito marker planes who would identify the target areas and drop 1,000-pound target indicators known to the Germans as "Christmas trees," which gave off a red glow for the bombers to aim at.

The main bomber force, called "Plate Rack", took off shortly after the Pathfinders. This was a group of 254 Lancasters carrying 500 tons of high explosives and 375 tons of incendiaries, or fire bombs. There were 200,000 incendiaries in all, with the high-explosive bombs ranging in weight from 500 pounds to 4,000 pounds — the so-called two-ton "cookies," also known as "blockbusters," because they had the power to destroy a city block. The high explosives were intended to rupture water mains, and blow off roofs, doors, and windows, creating an air flow that would feed the fires caused by the incendiaries that followed.

The second attack, three hours later, was by Lancaster aircraft of 1, 3, 6 and 8 (Pathfinder Force) Groups, 8 Group being the Pathfinders. By now, the thousands of fires from the burning city could be seen more than 60 miles (97 km) away on the ground, and 500 miles (800 km) away in the air, with smoke rising to 15,000 feet (4,600 m).[54] The Pathfinders therefore decided to expand the target, dropping flares on either side of the firestorm, 529 Lancasters dropped more than 1,800 tons of bombs.

The Bombing of Dresden remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War. The raids saw 1,300 heavy bombers drop over 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices in four raids, destroying 13 square miles (34 km2) of the city and causing a firestorm that consumed the city center. Estimates of civilian casualties vary greatly, but recent publications place the figure between 24,000 and 40,000.

[Raidenator]

See, this is where FBB believes you and I are missing the point Raid - he believes whatever is happening at Gitmo isn't torture.

I understand that. But we don't waterboard our American prisoners either. What makes the Iraqi's/Afghani's different?

[Borro]

I understand that. But we don't waterboard our American prisoners either. What makes the Iraqi's/Afghani's different?


Umm...nobody gives a fuck about them?

[Raidenator]

Umm...nobody gives a fuck about them?

Lol. That'd be awesome to hear court.

"Your Honor, I believe that waterboarding to be lawful on the grounds that nobody gives a fuck about these ragheads".

[Borro]

Lol. That'd be awesome to hear court.

"Your Honor, I believe that waterboarding to be lawful on the grounds that nobody gives a fuck about these ragheads".


that sounds like a solid defense to me. :thumb:

[Tilly]

I understand that. But we don't waterboard our American prisoners either. What makes the Iraqi's/Afghani's different?

I believe that's because they're not covered by our constitution.

[Raidenator]

I believe that's because they're not covered by our constitution.

If they're not covered by our Constitution then they're considered Foreign nationals which makes them even less susceptible to these acts.

[Borro]

Boo Hoo?

[Borro]

Go hug a fucking tree already.

[jaba]

I'm guessing this is your all too common mention of Vietnam and the napalm which was used there ? At least you're posting a different video in accompaniment this time around.

:smokin:

It seems that you've forgotten who taught the USA how to fire bomb innocent women and children ? :thumb:Different kind of war.
Different agenda entirely. Nice try though. :smokin:

[Nanabunga]

Different kind of war.
Different agenda entirely. Nice try though. :smokin:

How was the agenda different ?
Please explain.




edit:

and thanks for fixing the typo...
Grammar nazi. :smokin:

[Tilly]

If they're not covered by our Constitution then they're considered Foreign nationals which makes them even less susceptible to these acts.

Well, you can probably interpret the law to mean that they are foreign nationals. Then again, you can also interpret it to mean that they're something else. The law is almost never black and white, and even though laws are based on morality, it's not the context of that morality that makes something legal, it's the letter of the law. Letters can be read different ways.

[Tilly]

How was the agenda different ?
Please explain.

Didn't you used to have a definition of hypocrisy or something, stating that your average hypocrite uses environmental circumstance to justify himself, believing that it renders him exempt from following his own words or something?

[Nanabunga]

Didn't you used to have a definition of hypocrisy or something, stating that your average hypocrite uses environmental circumstance to justify himself, believing that it renders him exempt from following his own words or something?

Yes I did but you called me out with it once or twice and I cried and took it down.

:D

I can find it though....

[Tilly]

lololololol :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Was that really so funny that it made you pound on the floor or table or whatever in an uncontrollable fit of laughter...THREE times?

[Tilly]

seeing as i couldnt stop laughing in real life.. yes :D

I see, fair enough. :laugh:

[Tilly]

Yes I did but you called me out with it once or twice and I cried and took it down.

:D

I can find it though....

Hehe, I remember. It was still a good sig, though.

[Raidenator]

Go hug a fucking tree already.

Maybe I'll hug you...fuck I can't curse at you!

Well, you can probably interpret the law to mean that they are foreign nationals. Then again, you can also interpret it to mean that they're something else. The law is almost never black and white, and even though laws are based on morality, it's not the context of that morality that makes something legal, it's the letter of the law. Letters can be read different ways.

The law can be interpreted differently, I agree. I don't believe this is the case though. I'm not gonna argue the morality of it. That was simply in tie with the whether or not it was torture which would be defended by the possible UN Convention. If we've established that they are not protected by the UN, then they aren't subject to the UN anti-torture laws either. So it becomes moot.

What I'm saying is, is that they aren't nothing. Simply calling them detainees doesn't cut it. Someone has to establish what sort of rights these people are owed by slapping a name to them. Are they Prisoners of war? Or are they prisoners of the U.S. that have violated our laws? Or are they foreign nationals that should be extradited to another country to be tried and/or executed?

We did it with Saddam, why are these guys different?

I know someone is gonna bring up that Saddam is Iraqi and not Al Queda, but the point stands.

[Nanabunga]

Hehe, I remember. It was still a good sig, though.

:thumb:

In psychology, hypocritical behavior is closely related to the fundamental attribution error: individuals are more likely to explain their own actions by their environment, yet they attribute the actions of others to 'innate characteristics', thus leading towards judging others while justifying ones' own actions.

:D

[Tilly]

Maybe I'll hug you...fuck I can't curse at you!



The law can be interpreted differently, I agree. I don't believe this is the case though. I'm not gonna argue the morality of it. That was simply in tie with the whether or not it was torture which would be defended by the possible UN Convention. If we've established that they are not protected by the UN, then they aren't subject to the UN anti-torture laws either. So it becomes moot.

What I'm saying is, is that they aren't nothing. Simply calling them detainees doesn't cut it. Someone has to establish what sort of rights these people are owed by slapping a name to them. Are they Prisoners of war? Or are they prisoners of the U.S. that have violated our laws? Or are they foreign nationals that should be extradited to another country to be tried and/or executed?

We did it with Saddam, why are these guys different?

I know someone is gonna bring up that Saddam is Iraqi and not Al Queda, but the point stands.

I'm not sure. If a citizen of another country enters the US illegally and kills someone, are they considered a foreign national in court? I know they're afforded the rights under the constitution just because the crime was committed in the US. I don't think the suspects at gitmo can be considered nationals because they didn't commit any crime in the US.

Maybe they don't have a special name for them, and maybe it's like that on purpose, since it's probably because of that gray area that we can do what we want to them.

If I were to venture a guess, the only law these suspects would actually fall under would be Iraqi law since the alleged crimes happened on their soil, and I'm guessing the Iraqi government is okay with whatever happens. If they demanded extradition, we might have to oblige, but it seems they're not.

[Tilly]

Hehe, now let's tack that onto jaba's comment.

Different kind of war.
Different agenda entirely. Nice try though. :smokin:

:thumb:

In psychology, hypocritical behavior is closely related to the fundamental attribution error: individuals are more likely to explain their own actions by their environment, yet they attribute the actions of others to 'innate characteristics', thus leading towards judging others while justifying ones' own actions.

:D

Haha, beautiful.

[footballbat]

How about we call them "Unlawful Combatants"? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html

…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.

[Raidenator]

How about we call them "Unlawful Combatants"? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html

Touche on the link. Sorry, I'd be looking this stuff up myself but I'm at school and trying to take notes too.

So we've established what they are. "to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. "

But this doesn't address the issue of what rights they are entitled to. Ath made the claim that they may be subject to Iraqi law. Were that the case, we would have no jurisdiction/right to carry out their law. If they're under our jurisdiction then surely they're not under Iraqi law. So I'm just curious what rights these people actually have.

[Tilly]

Touche on the link. Sorry, I'd be looking this stuff up myself but I'm at school and trying to take notes too.

So we've established what they are. "to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. "

But this doesn't address the issue of what rights they are entitled to. Ath made the claim that they may be subject to Iraqi law. Were that the case, we would have no jurisdiction/right to carry out their law. If they're under our jurisdiction then surely they're not under Iraqi law. So I'm just curious what rights these people actually have.

I'm just talking out of my ass, but maybe in Iraqi law right now, it states that because of the circumstances of war, they can have us assume judicial authority in their stead, thus making it some huge ass loophole that basically places them outside the bounds of the Geneva convention and US law, and allows us to do whatever the fuck we want to these suspects.

I really have no clue, I'm just taking a stab at what I think is a likely scenario.

[Raidenator]

I'm just talking out of my ass, but maybe in Iraqi law right now, it states that because of the circumstances of war, they can have us assume judicial authority in their stead, thus making it some huge ass loophole that basically places them outside the bounds of the Geneva convention and US law, and allows us to do whatever the fuck we want to these suspects.

I really have no clue, I'm just taking a stab at what I think is a likely scenario.

Yeah I know, but I think it's a pretty good guess. I was thinking the same thing. It seems like the only justifiable way for it to happen considering we're in sort of an occupation state of the country. So who knows?

I guess it doesn't really matter one way or another. I'm not asking that the Bush administration be tried for war crimes. I'm just saying that I'm glad we won't have that blight on our countries name anymore. Or at the very least, not have it so well known.

[Nanabunga]

I'm just talking out of my ass

I thought your breath smelled like shit.













:rofl:

[BillZBubb]

I bet you luurve the smell of napalm in the morning.
How about those bat shit 'Zippo Raids' man? You dig? You are full of it mate. :rofl:



I have served in combat, have you? What the fuck do you know about it that you have not seen in a movie somewhere, and why should your opinion mean jack shit to me?

And I am not the least ashamed to say that if I had not been disabled, I would still be in the army, and loving every day of it. I would do it all again.

[jaba]

How was the agenda different ?
Please explain.You of all people should know the difference between defeating Germany and US 'containment' policies during the Cold War.
Unlike you my flippant comments were intended to highlight the myopic, single-minded, kill, kill, kill attitudes shown by quite a few self-serving Yanks here and not to derail the fucking thread. Incidentally Kenneth, before you inflate your ego too much regarding Dresden, you should take a good look at the US involvement in the bombing raids and lets not forget those dozy cunts who bombed Prague by mistake.
:rofl:

Hehe, now let's tack that onto jaba's comment. Haha, beautiful.There you go again.
Sticking your fucking NOSE in again. Shouldn't you be polishing your sword? :cool:

[rubicks]

There you go again.
Sticking your fucking NOSE in again. Shouldn't you be polishing your sword? :cool:[/quote]



Or falling on it just to keep the Brit happy?

[jaba]

I have served in combat, have you?Whizzy fucking whoo.
What did you serve - chow-line food? Am I supposed to be impressed? I don't give a shit about your time spent playing soldiers - your posts annoyed me so I have little or no respect for you. For the record - I never served but I own a few pairs of combats.

What the fuck do you know about it that you have not seen in a movie somewhere, and why should your opinion mean jack shit to me?Know about what exactly?
How to kill prisoners like you claim? I've seen that in celluloid many fucking times - how about you soldier? When you say 'Why should your opinion mean jack shit to me' - is that statement part of your training when dealing with all those condemned POW's you capture on the way to the toilet?

And I am not the least ashamed to say that if I had not been disabled, I would still be in the armyLol.
I am not the least ashamed to be able bodied and never joined the army. What did you do - fall off a sand pile or blow your own fucking leg off or something? :D

[JooX]

Maybe I'll hug you...fuck I can't curse at you!



The law can be interpreted differently, I agree. I don't believe this is the case though. I'm not gonna argue the morality of it. That was simply in tie with the whether or not it was torture which would be defended by the possible UN Convention. If we've established that they are not protected by the UN, then they aren't subject to the UN anti-torture laws either. So it becomes moot.

What I'm saying is, is that they aren't nothing. Simply calling them detainees doesn't cut it. Someone has to establish what sort of rights these people are owed by slapping a name to them. Are they Prisoners of war? Or are they prisoners of the U.S. that have violated our laws? Or are they foreign nationals that should be extradited to another country to be tried and/or executed?

We did it with Saddam, why are these guys different?

I know someone is gonna bring up that Saddam is Iraqi and not Al Queda, but the point stands.

I'm not sure. If a citizen of another country enters the US illegally and kills someone, are they considered a foreign national in court? I know they're afforded the rights under the constitution just because the crime was committed in the US. I don't think the suspects at gitmo can be considered nationals because they didn't commit any crime in the US.

Maybe they don't have a special name for them, and maybe it's like that on purpose, since it's probably because of that gray area that we can do what we want to them.

If I were to venture a guess, the only law these suspects would actually fall under would be Iraqi law since the alleged crimes happened on their soil, and I'm guessing the Iraqi government is okay with whatever happens. If they demanded extradition, we might have to oblige, but it seems they're not.

How about we call them "Unlawful Combatants"? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html

Touche on the link. Sorry, I'd be looking this stuff up myself but I'm at school and trying to take notes too.

So we've established what they are. "to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. "

But this doesn't address the issue of what rights they are entitled to. Ath made the claim that they may be subject to Iraqi law. Were that the case, we would have no jurisdiction/right to carry out their law. If they're under our jurisdiction then surely they're not under Iraqi law. So I'm just curious what rights these people actually have.

I'm just talking out of my ass, but maybe in Iraqi law right now, it states that because of the circumstances of war, they can have us assume judicial authority in their stead, thus making it some huge ass loophole that basically places them outside the bounds of the Geneva convention and US law, and allows us to do whatever the fuck we want to these suspects.

I really have no clue, I'm just taking a stab at what I think is a likely scenario.

Because im on my way to a party shortly... I cant be arsed looking it up, BUT; Isnt this the direct result of all the Homeland Security BS, and the new laws brought about by the 9-11 attacks?

Im fairly sure they used it as the means to make it "legal" for them to detain these people, classify them as whatever it is they do, and then just beat the shit out of them.


Someone else look into it, I expect a full report in the morning.

[jaba]

Because im on my way to a party shortly... I cant be arsed looking it up, BUT; Isnt this the direct result of all the Homeland Security BS, and the new laws brought about by the 9-11 attacks?

Im fairly sure they used it as the means to make it "legal" for them to detain these people, classify them as whatever it is they do, and then just beat the shit out of them.


Someone else look into it, I expect a full report in the morning.Extraordinary Rendition. :cool:

[BillZBubb]

Lol.
I am not the least ashamed to be able bodied and never joined the army. What did you do - fall off a sand pile or blow your own fucking leg off or something? :D

No, XXXXXXX, the chopper I was in was shot down and I crushed several vertebrae.

Not my problem that you are not ashamed to be a yellow XXXXXXX who hides his cowardice behind contempt.

LOL, and I could not give a shit less that my posts "annoyed" you. Boo fucking hoo.

I guess ya answered the question I had about who you are... the answer is, nobody at all. :smokin:

Jaba is a good name for you... a XXXXXXXXXX. lol

Personal Attacks Removed - JACKASS2008

[Nanabunga]

You of all people should know the difference between defeating Germany and US 'containment' policies during the Cold War.
Unlike you my flippant comments were intended to highlight the myopic, single-minded, kill, kill, kill attitudes shown by quite a few self-serving Yanks here and not to derail the fucking thread.


Of course I know the difference
I just like hearing you type. :smokin:

Incidentally Kenneth, before you inflate your ego too much regarding Dresden, you should take a good look at the US involvement in the bombing raids

Why should I take a good look at something I am well aware of ?
I snipped them out of the article didn't I ? :cool:

*Incidentally Henry, before you inflate your blow up doll too much you should realize I was only highlighting that the Brits went first, the Yanks were under a shroud of bad weather and didn't take off until the next day.

:D

[jaba]

No, XXXXXXXX, the chopper I was in was shot down and I crushed several vertebrae.Hahaha.
Stop bleating - you landed on your arse.

Not my problem that you are not ashamed to be a XXXXXXXXX who hides his cowardice behind contempt.How is that?
Is it because I didn't have the opportunity to kill anyone or because I didn't want to go and fucking play soldiers?

LOL, and I could not give a shit less that my posts "annoyed" you. Boo fucking hoo.

I guess ya answered the question I had about who you are... the answer is, nobody at all. Maybe.
I'm just not prepared to be a 'somebody' who is a XXXXX like you. :cool:

Jaba is a good name for you... a XXXXXX. lolAaawww.
You are so brutal when you get angry. :D
Eft, eft, eft ight eft,. Eft, eft, eft ight eft.

either i fucked up or you have a good memory
also personal attack removed, keep it in the fight room gentlemen.
- jackass

[jaba]

* Taps fingers in anticipation *
I can see you - hurry up!

[Nanabunga]

* Taps fingers in anticipation *
[COL OR=White]I can see you - hurry up![/COLOR]

Now you know what it's like for me sometimes
Waiting for your responses can be excruciatingly frustrating gramps. :cool:

[mousewallrat]

You of all people should know the difference between defeating Germany and US 'containment' policies during the Cold War.
Unlike you my flippant comments were intended to highlight the myopic, single-minded, kill, kill, kill attitudes shown by quite a few self-serving Yanks here and not to derail the fucking thread. Incidentally Kenneth, before you inflate your ego too much regarding Dresden, you should take a good look at the US involvement in the bombing raids and lets not forget those dozy cunts who bombed Prague by mistake.
:rofl:

There you go again.
Sticking your fucking NOSE in again. Shouldn't you be polishing your sword? :cool:
If you say that again, we're going to stop off on our way to kill some other dudes, and kill you first. ......... now where was I? Oh yes, my 'who to kill today' list.

[jaba]

Now you know what it's like for me sometimes
Waiting for your responses can be excruciatingly frustrating gramps. :cool:I called someone a loser and got a warning. :D
Fascist mods eh?

If you say that again, we're going to stop off on our way to kill some other dudes, and kill you first. ......... now where was I? Oh yes, my 'who to kill today' list.What the bloody hell are you banging your gums about? :cool:

[Borro]

I called someone a loser and got a warning. :D
Fascist mods eh?

What the bloody hell are you banging your gums about? :cool:


at least JERKOFF is being a mod, and trying to enforce rules without listening to the other numbskulls in the Mod Room.

I'm proud of him. Such an evil bastard he has become.

[JACKASS2010]

lol @ ur trollin borro.

@ uncle jaba - rules is rules i'm afraid, no matter how much i proclaim my undying love for you i cannot show favouritism.

:omg:

:D

[jaba]

lol @ ur trollin borro.

@ uncle jaba - rules is rules i'm afraid, no matter how much i proclaim my undying love for you i cannot show favouritism.
You missed these fuckers lol.You stupid moron! It's not there, it's THEIR. :mad:I think you should give that asshole an infraction for a PA outside the fight room.Hey, jerkballz. I'm saying Obama is the Anti-Christ. Nobody wants to hear your pseudo war stories. Fuck off.

And this threat.If you say that again, we're going to stop off on our way to kill some other dudes, and kill you first. ......... now where was I? Oh yes, my 'who to kill today' list.

I've been stitched up. :bluewinky:

[Borro]

aww, jaba must have had his widdle hand slapped.

*sniffle sniffle

i'm glad you are taking the "Willow" approach of dealing with such an injustice.

[footballbat]

He's right, though.

Especially about that dickhead, footballbat.

[jaba]

i'm glad you are taking the "Willow" approach of dealing with such an injustice.Not really.
It's another method I'm employing to annoy the fuck out of a mod. :thumb:

[JACKASS2010]

I'll allow another mod to deal with it as they see fit then.

your method is now unemployed.

this recession is a bastard, eh?

:smokin:

[jaba]

I'll allow another mod to deal with it as they see fit then.

your method is now unemployed.

this recession is a bastard, eh?

:smokin:Jackass.
You are taking this too seriously - I was only trying to piss on your bonfire a bit. :o

[Borro]

He's been like this since I got here. I think it's time for him to change his tampon. :omg:

[JACKASS2010]

that tampon has a good few more washes in it.....

YEAH, I RECYCLE!

WHAT!

lewl

[JACKASS2010]

Jackass.
You are taking this too seriously - I was only trying to piss on your bonfire a bit. :o

my bonfire is an oil field. you're pissing into the wind my love.;)

[Big Ozzie]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f84/joebuchanan/crap.jpg

[Big Ozzie]

Hahahahahahahhahaha....I lol'd, realy I did!!!11!!

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f84/joebuchanan/cid_BC36F73882C94F67B53085BE323AADE.jpg

[tgd_02]

yay for obama being our presi!!

:D

[mousewallrat]

As Mouse so eloquently put it, looks like you got your asses handed to you.Well, thanks so much for the flattery Willow, but please allow me to continue being eloquent and say that as usual, you are mistaken.
I can make a few guesses as to why people have gone a bit nuts about a new President taking office. First, the economy and the endless war have dragged the collective American psyche into a pretty deep depression. A new Administration means a fresh start, new ideas and methods, and more importantly, promise of direct intervention to get shit sorted instead of the "wait it out" method (until criticism gets too strong anyway) of the last Administration. It's like a little sunbeam has broken through the dark cloud hanging over all our heads. Firstly, only the psycho Liberals are depressed at our winning (albeit too slowly) in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no argument on the economy, or the pace of the War, but I think we are in fact winning.

Second, and I don't give a shit who's sick of hearing it, Obama is not only the first black President, he's the first non-Caucasian to hold the office. Many of you live in other countries and won't easily understand the significance of that, hell, most Americans won't realize the significance, but this really is a big deal. His election is evidence of a major shift in public participation in the political process. How many members here said they would not vote at all if they didn't like either candidate? A lot of Americans feel that way, and it was evident this election when voter turnout was so high especially among non-white voters. Also, many ordinary people feel like they have something in common with Obama because he had a pretty ordinary start in life.
Willow, Obama isn't Black...he's White. Which is also wrong, but at least is equally true. In fact, he's multi-racial, or a half-breed, if you want to be rude. FFS, he may identify with the Black culture, but he has a Caucasion mother. Get it straight.
Third, never before has an outgoing Administration been so tolerant of an incoming Administration. To Bush's credit, he pretty much opened the oval office door and invited Obama in the day after the election. Not only has Bush been supportive, do you recall the luncheon a week or two ago with all the living Presidents (also never been done as I recall)? They all support Obama and his agendas.
Really, have you forgotten the John Tyler/James Polk transition, or that of Calvin Coolidge/Herbert Hoover? Those both went much more smoothly. What a terrible oversight. I feel like I'm talking to Jaba, seeing such an ignorance of American Politics.

[UncoverReality]

Firstly, only the psycho Liberals are depressed at our winning (albeit too slowly) in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no argument on the economy, or the pace of the War, but I think we are in fact winning.

Winning? This is something I have struggled to understand for a long time regarding Iraq. Every time Condoleezza Rice mentioned 'Victory in Iraq' as a priority, I wanted to scream at her. What constitutes a victory in Iraq? How is it measured? I thought Bush already declared victory? Do you have a definitive answer in this case, because I sure don't? The simple fact remains, the US & UK never should have gone into Iraq in the way they did. There can never be victory in the true sense. It was already lost when Bush used a tragedy to bolster support for an unnecessary and some say, illegal invasion. The administration did their level best to link Saddam to 9/11 and for that, they can never be forgiven, imo. It was a deliberate attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people he was elected to govern. Yes, Saddam was a cunt. But that's not reason enough for me. Why aren't we removing Mugabe or the Burma army? The priority should be to get the troops back as soon as possible and ensure Iraq doesn't crumble once they leave. I see that as damage-limitation, not victory or winning. Unless, you can give me the answer I'm looking for regarding this 'victory'?

If the UK and US had focused on Afghanistan from the very beginning and not used 9/11 to also invade Iraq at the same time, then victory would have been swift and transparent, imo.

[Big Ozzie]

Willow, Obama isn't Black...he's White. Which is also wrong, but at least is equally true. In fact, he's multi-racial, or a half-breed, if you want to be rude. FFS, he may identify with the Black culture, but he has a Caucasion mother. Get it straight.


Some of the proper vernaculars for the term 1/2 breed is a "Mulatto", a "Mud Shark", a "Mutt", a "Hapa", an "Oreo", a "Halfrican" or a "Half and Half".
Please make a note of it for future reference! :thumb:

[Nanabunga]

LOL @ Halfrican...

[mousewallrat]

Winning? This is something I have struggled to understand for a long time regarding Iraq. Every time Condoleezza Rice mentioned 'Victory in Iraq' as a priority, I wanted to scream at her. What constitutes a victory in Iraq? How is it measured? I thought Bush already declared victory? Do you have a definitive answer in this case, because I sure don't? The simple fact remains, the US & UK never should have gone into Iraq in the way they did. There can never be victory in the true sense. It was already lost when Bush used a tragedy to bolster support for an unnecessary and some say, illegal invasion. The administration did their level best to link Saddam to 9/11 and for that, they can never be forgiven, imo. It was a deliberate attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people he was elected to govern. Yes, Saddam was a cunt. But that's not reason enough for me. Why aren't we removing Mugabe or the Burma army? The priority should be to get the troops back as soon as possible and ensure Iraq doesn't crumble once they leave. I see that as damage-limitation, not victory or winning. Unless, you can give me the answer I'm looking for regarding this 'victory'?

If the UK and US had focused on Afghanistan from the very beginning and not used 9/11 to also invade Iraq at the same time, then victory would have been swift and transparent, imo.

First of all, I think W was the worst President in my lifetime (I'm 48), so I'm no cheerleader of his. I hate the fucker. But if you look at the lowering amounts of attacks on the troops and the increasing stability of the Iraqi Government, the way the insurgents get stomped every time they engage us, and how many regions are returned to local political and police control, that's a win to me. It's taken far too long, cost too many lives, too much money, and isn't done, but we're still coming out on top.

[Willow]

First of all, I think W was the worst President in my lifetime (I'm 48), so I'm no cheerleader of his. I hate the fucker. But if you look at the lowering amounts of attacks on the troops and the increasing stability of the Iraqi Government, the way the insurgents get stomped every time they engage us, and how many regions are returned to local political and police control, that's a win to me. It's taken far too long, cost too many lives, too much money, and isn't done, but we're still coming out on top.I agree with that. Our troops are well trained, and they do an excellent job. I have nothing negative to say about them whatsoever.

But they should not have been sent to Iraq. Tens of thousands have been sent, thousands have lost their lives and the main job, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, could have been done by special forces troops.

As for the Iraqi government, I am not convinced that it was the U.S.'s responsibility to overhaul it. What's in it for the U.S. anyway? We have spent Billions (Trillions?) there and what will the U.S. get in return? More jobs? No. A boost to our economy? Definitely no. Respect from the rest of the world for taking on the tough job of reforming Iraq.? Again, no. Will we all get our heating oil for lower prices because of the Iraqi government's gratitude? I doubt it. Did we save the world from the WMD's that Hussein had stockpiled. Oh, wait, there weren't any. Did we stop Hussein from attacking the U.S.? Uh, i don't believe he ever planned or threatened to (?).

So, when you say we're winning, what exactly is it that we're winning? I see nothing but loss.

[__BLAK__]

I agree with that. Our troops are well trained, and they do an excellent job. I have nothing negative to say about them whatsoever.

But they should not have been sent to Iraq. Tens of thousands have been sent, thousands have lost their lives and the main job, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, could have been done by special forces troops.

As for the Iraqi government, I am not convinced that it was the U.S.'s responsibility to overhaul it. What's in it for the U.S. anyway? We have spent Billions (Trillions?) there and what will the U.S. get in return? More jobs? No. A boost to our economy? Definitely no. Respect from the rest of the world for taking on the tough job of reforming Iraq.? Again, no. Will we all get our heating oil for lower prices because of the Iraqi government's gratitude? I doubt it. Did we save the world from the WMD's that Hussein had stockpiled. Oh, wait, there weren't any. Did we stop Hussein from attacking the U.S.? Uh, i don't believe he ever planned or threatened to (?).

So, when you say we're winning, what exactly is it that we're winning? I see nothing but loss.

Willow what are you talking about? We already won years ago, this picture says it all.

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/dialogue/postcolonialism/Bush-Mission-Accomplished.jpg

Sarcasm of course.....

[Willow]

Willow what are you talking about? We already won years ago, this picture says it all.

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/dialogue/postcolonialism/Bush-Mission-Accomplished.jpg

Sarcasm of course.....
Here is an article that goes with that pic Blak:

Bush Regrets 'Mission Accomplished' Banner

George W Bush has said he regrets speaking in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed just weeks after the invasion of Iraq.



By Macy Hurwitz in Washington
Last Updated: 6:52PM GMT 12 Nov 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01112/mission_accomplish_1112950c.jpg President Bush and the offending banner on board the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003. Photo: AP


The President said he also wished he had not used such aggressive rhetoric leading up to and during the war.
The US president told CNN that the triumphant words hoisted on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 were meant to cheer up the troops.
"They had a sign that said 'Mission Accomplished.' It was a sign aimed at the sailors on the ship, but it conveyed a broader knowledge. To some it said, well, Bush thinks the war in Iraq is over, when I didn't think that. But nonetheless, it conveyed the wrong message," he said.
The speech the president made under the banner became a symbol of his poor choice of words and overconfidence about Iraq, which from that point on deteriorated into a bloodbath.
But with just two months left as president after eight years in office, Mr Bush was in reflective mood.
"I regret saying some things I shouldn't have said," he said, when asked about his regrets. "Like 'dead or alive' and 'bring 'em on.' My wife reminded me that, hey, as president of the United States, be careful what you say."
The president said he plans to return to his home state Texas as soon as he leaves office. "I miss Texas, I love Texas, I've got a lot of friends in Texas," he said.
He has begun to outline a book, which will convey the pressures of his job in times of crisis.
"I want people to know what it was like to make some of the decisions I had to make," he said. "In other words, what was the moment like? And I've had one of those presidencies where I've had to make some tough calls, and I want people to know the truth about what it was like sitting in the Oval Office."

[__BLAK__]

Here is an article that goes with that pic Blak:

Bush Regrets 'Mission Accomplished' Banner

George W Bush has said he regrets speaking in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed just weeks after the invasion of Iraq.



By Macy Hurwitz in Washington
Last Updated: 6:52PM GMT 12 Nov 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01112/mission_accomplish_1112950c.jpg President Bush and the offending banner on board the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003. Photo: AP


The President said he also wished he had not used such aggressive rhetoric leading up to and during the war.
The US president told CNN that the triumphant words hoisted on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 were meant to cheer up the troops.
"They had a sign that said 'Mission Accomplished.' It was a sign aimed at the sailors on the ship, but it conveyed a broader knowledge. To some it said, well, Bush thinks the war in Iraq is over, when I didn't think that. But nonetheless, it conveyed the wrong message," he said.
The speech the president made under the banner became a symbol of his poor choice of words and overconfidence about Iraq, which from that point on deteriorated into a bloodbath.
But with just two months left as president after eight years in office, Mr Bush was in reflective mood.
"I regret saying some things I shouldn't have said," he said, when asked about his regrets. "Like 'dead or alive' and 'bring 'em on.' My wife reminded me that, hey, as president of the United States, be careful what you say."
The president said he plans to return to his home state Texas as soon as he leaves office. "I miss Texas, I love Texas, I've got a lot of friends in Texas," he said.
He has begun to outline a book, which will convey the pressures of his job in times of crisis.
"I want people to know what it was like to make some of the decisions I had to make," he said. "In other words, what was the moment like? And I've had one of those presidencies where I've had to make some tough calls, and I want people to know the truth about what it was like sitting in the Oval Office."

Willow, I'm a blind conservative supporter of Bush... I don't read these things that you call articles.....All I see is Mission Accomplished and that is good enough for me.

Sarcasm is beautiful isn't it?

[UncoverReality]

^^^I'm pretty sure it's the noun that applies in that case, flyboy. lol

[UncoverReality]

First of all, I think W was the worst President in my lifetime (I'm 48), so I'm no cheerleader of his. I hate the fucker. But if you look at the lowering amounts of attacks on the troops and the increasing stability of the Iraqi Government, the way the insurgents get stomped every time they engage us, and how many regions are returned to local political and police control, that's a win to me. It's taken far too long, cost too many lives, too much money, and isn't done, but we're still coming out on top.

Condoleezza Rice doesn't listen to me so I took I out on you, mate. :p

I understand what you are asserting to, though. The 'surge' worked. But I don't see that as winning, although I can see it would be good for troop moral to interpret it that way.

The real issue is, what happens next? Bush has left Obama a poisoned chalice, imo. It's very difficult for him to do anything in Iraq without there being some escalation in violence. But something needs to be done. While the current stalemate keeps bad news from Iraq out of the headlines, Obama knows it is doing nothing to get the troops home. And that's the most important thing. He has an amazing ability to bring people together and it will be interesting to see the approach he takes.

[sib]

you get my point. dont be a dumbass.

Retrospect, that's the difference that you're unwilling to see. One situation gives us 5 years of retrospect, the other just more than 5 days. How were things working out 5 days into anything you deem successful? There's a high probability that things were less than settled in the infancy of anything you deem successful.

Of course, we don't know if Obama will be successful yet, conversely, we don't know he'll be a failure.

Consequently, the photo op of "Mission Accomplished" was orchestrated with more retrospect time than the week Obama has been in office and the man standing in front of the banner has admitted that it was bad judgement, guess he didn't give the situation enough time to gather the facts...retrospect. :smokin:

[sib]

my point is blind liberals. this guy says change? HOLY FUCK HE IS GOD!!!! :eek:

I only hear conservatives refer to him as god. Beyond all the labels the man will be judged by his handling or mishandling this country. He just benefits from having a fiscal failure prior to him, which makes the transition into social spending a bit easier on Obama and the possibility that he could move too far to social programs.

[UncoverReality]

my point is blind liberals. this guy says change? HOLY FUCK HE IS GOD!!!! :eek:

Well, judging by his first week in office, change is certainly apparent. You may not agree with the changes, but he is putting in place the things he told all those 'blind liberals' he would. In four years time we can all judge whether the change was for the better.

In your rush to post how he 'snubbed' the American Legion in the other thread, you forgot to check what the American Legion actually thought about the issue. 'Blind' could also be an appropriate connotation here, imo.

[__BLAK__]

my point is blind liberals. this guy says change? HOLY FUCK HE IS GOD!!!! :eek:

He maybe God, because my blind conservative brain can't comprehend his exalted intellect...

See... the thing I like about Bush is that he is a good ole boy like me. He doesn't know shit about economics, protecting the country, obeying the constitution, managing a war, building a successful company, or even how to speak properly just like me. He doesn't give a fuck about the majority of the country; he cares about his friends and his family; the way it ought to be. I like a President who will take more vacations than hold press conferences and tell those pakis to bring it on, and throw up his middle finger in front of a camera before he gives a presidental address.. that's my guy.

But I don't like that there boy Obama. Oh no. Him and his planning, and his statistics, and his numbers and all that nonsense. Who gives a shit about his "plan" to "fix" the economy, or create more jobs in 2 years than Bush did in 8(cross check that), or to try to end one very expensive war? Who cares that he's going to reverse the tax cuts for the rich and give cuts to a majority of the population, which would include me?

I will keep my guns, the little money I have, cling to my religion, and he can keep his "change".

Git r done....
See what I did there

[Nanabunga]

See what I did there

see what I did ?

:D

[__BLAK__]

see what I did ?

:D

I chuckled...

[ceehound619]

He maybe God, because my blind conservative brain can't comprehend his exalted intellect...

See... the thing I like about Bush is that he is a good ole boy like me. He doesn't know shit about economics, protecting the country, obeying the constitution, managing a war, building a successful company, or even how to speak properly just like me. He doesn't give a fuck about the majority of the country; he cares about his friends and his family; the way it ought to be. I like a President who will take more vacations than hold press conferences and tell those pakis to bring it on, and throw up his middle finger in front of a camera before he gives a presidental address.. that's my guy.

But I don't like that there boy Obama. Oh no. Him and his planning, and his statistics, and his numbers and all that nonsense. Who gives a shit about his "plan" to "fix" the economy, or create more jobs in 2 years than Bush did in 8(cross check that), or to try to end one very expensive war? Who cares that he's going to reverse the tax cuts for the rich and give cuts to a majority of the population, which would include me?

I will keep my guns, the little money I have, cling to my religion, and he can keep his "change".

Git r done....
See what I did there
while I agree with the keeping guns,money, and freedom... I DISAGREE regarding the president being well spoken.....whether you like it or not...the PREsident represents more then just YOU and I....he represents this country(fucked off as it is).....and he should be able to speak properly. And he didint get hired to take vacations.... he got hired to do a job.

[__BLAK__]

Firstly, only the psycho Liberals are depressed at our winning (albeit too slowly) in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no argument on the economy, or the pace of the War, but I think we are in fact winning.


Sure we're winning. We've spent almost 5 years and still going strong. Spent over 560+ billion while our economy goes in the crapper and lost 4200+ AMERICAN lives for someone and something that posed no threat to the US or the world.
y1X-I-38lrU

We really showed them....

[Big Ozzie]

http://www.hahastop.com/pictures/Bushama.jpg

[hoschiadedodi]

http://www.hahastop.com/pictures/Bushama.jpg
http://img5.myimg.de/evolutionDWWissen190149gf5de2.jpg
?

[mousewallrat]

Sure we're winning. We've spent almost 5 years and still going strong. Spent over 560+ billion while our economy goes in the crapper and lost 4200+ AMERICAN lives for someone and something that posed no threat to the US or the world.

We really showed them....
Doh! Why didn't I mention that it is taking too long, is too expensive, and cost too many lives.............oh wait, I did. But you're right, we should never have gone there. Fuck that place, and fuck Bush for ever taking our guys to war there.

[__BLAK__]

http://www.hahastop.com/pictures/Bushama.jpg

That would explain this

_ldZS9PL9KE

[MontysDouble]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/16/2687133.htm

US urged to exonerate Hicks

By Alison Caldwell for AM

A leading expert in international law has called on the Obama administration to rescind the charge against former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.

Arrested in Afghanistan in 2001 and declared an enemy combatant, Mr Hicks eventually pleaded guilty to a charge of providing material support for terrorism in 2007.

After serving the remainder of his prison sentence in Adelaide, Mr Hicks is now a free man living in Sydney.

But a high-ranking legal official has told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington that the charge Mr Hicks was found guilty of should be done away with.

Mr Hicks was the first person to be tried and convicted under the US Military Commissions Act of 2006.

In March 2007, after five years in Guantanamo Bay, his legal team struck a deal with prosecutors to secure his release, and Mr Hicks pleaded guilty to a single new charge of providing material support to terrorism.

Now the US Assistant Attorney-General has said the charge should be done away with.

In a lengthy statement to the Senate committee, David Kris said the charge was now under question.

"There are serious questions to whether material support for terrorism or terrorist groups is a traditional violation of the law of war," he said.

"The President has made clear that military commissions are used only to prosecute law-of-war offences.

"Our experts believe there is a significant risk that appeal at courts will ultimately conclude that material support for terrorism is not a traditional law-of-war offence, thereby reversing hard won convictions and leading to questions about the system's legitimacy."

The Pentagon's top lawyer, Jeh Johnson, agrees and says the Pentagon no longer believes material support is a law-of-war offence.

The Law Council of Australia's President John Corcoran says his organisation expressed the same concerns two years ago.

"The Law Council very much welcomes the US administration's submission ... that the charge of providing material support for terrorism is not a charge that should be brought before a military commission," he said.

"This is consistent with the advice that the Law Council obtained in 2007 from several renowned experts in the area of international law."

Exoneration

Professor Tim McCormack, a lecturer in international humanitarian law at the University of Melbourne, has advised Mr Hicks' legal team on law-of-war issues.

He says if the Senate committee adopts the advice and drops the charge from the bill, Mr Hicks should then be exonerated

"He should be exonerated having been convicted of an offence that not only the US administration, but now if this happens the Congress, accepts is unknown in the law of war and not a sufficient basis for having convicted him wrongly," he said.

"For me, it's just one example of the complexities that have emerged from a system that was rushed from the start, was not thought through properly, that was created ad hoc without really thinking through the implications of it."