Offshoot of the London Thread

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke, the soldiers who forced the Iraqis to jump off the bridges got very limited sentences. One got 6 months and was not discharged. The military jury also reduced the rank of Army Sgt. 1st Class Tracy Perkins by one grade to staff sergeant, which cuts his pay and responsibilities. Perkins, 33, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault, assault consummated by battery and obstruction of justice. Two deaths and he serves 6 months. Hardly appropriate. Soldiers that were interviewed by the tribunal looking into the matter said that he was an amazing soldier, a wonderful American hero etc. etc. -- So please, they are being given a hero's welcome.

 

In Abu Ghraib -- no officers are facing charges as per the Washington Post. They relieved one of the generals from their duties -- Wow, retirement -- that sure shows them! Hell, Rumsfeld is even discussing PROMOTING Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez (who was in charge of Abu Ghraib during the time of the height of the abuses) despite not being cleared by an independent tribunal of the accusations against him.

 

So if you want to talk about people involved in inhumane activities [read the discussions and details of the sytematic torture in the Taguba report -- found right here http://www.agonist.org/annex/taguba.htm being lionized as heroes, look no further than what the US military is itself involved in. [http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/4566/printer -- forcing women to show their breasts at gunpoint...What a vital intelligence gathering move that is!]

 

Please Nuke, enlighten me to the intelligence gathering abilities that can be garnered from (taken right out of the Taguba report):

6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

 

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

 

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

 

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

 

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

 

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

 

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

 

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

 

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

 

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

 

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

 

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

 

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

 

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

 

---

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

 

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

 

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

 

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

 

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

 

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

 

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

 

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

 

Its not just sleep dep, Nuke -- it's sodomizing with household items and other horrific activities. So please, get your facts straight before you start shooting some hot air. And really, reading the report of the widespread abuses -- the US military should really listen to the old adage before they start going and calling other people savages -- "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

 

Edit: fixed broken link to report.

Edited July 7, 2005 by Queen Prawn

[Queen Prawn]

I tried to fix it - hopefully I didn't screw anything up.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I tried to fix it - hopefully I didn't screw anything up.

Nope, that did it. Nice Webmonkeying.

[Balta1701]

So I take it this is the official thread for snarkiness/being an arse/angry debates about the London bombings? I've tried to avoid it in the other thread.

 

If that is the case...then I have only 1 thing to say.

 

THE PRESIDENT: We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities.

D'Oh.

[Balta1701]

Ok...I have one more thing to say...have I mentionned lately how despicable Fox News is?

 

The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney occurred during breaking news coverage of the attacks on London subways and buses on the July 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

 

KILMEADE: And he [british Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

 

VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

 

KILMEADE: Yeah.

Fox News...you heard it here first...these attacks are a good thing for the western world.

[Steff]

I'm reading 'it's good for them to be together to be able to lean on and support each other in this time of disaster..'

 

Just me though..

[Rex Kickass]

That's really not such an outrageous statement. Sadly, because our leaders are too often willing to make cosmetic changes rather than real ones to appear like problems are actually being fixed, it takes tragedy for real change to occur.

 

This attack in London could have been far, far worse. A part of me feels that there's a real opportunity for leaders in the Western world come to grips with what they can and can't do to protect its citizens from terror attacks without undermining the freedom and liberty that its subjects enjoy.

 

I guess I have my optimist hat on today. I feel that there is opportunity for betterment everywhere, even in tragedy. We can become a stronger better world because of the terrible actions of a few.

 

Sadly - because at heart I am not an optimist, I think that rather than asking for the real changes that need to happen on a governmental level to make us safer, we'll get more color coding.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I have added my own insightful judgement of each of these acts of "torture" as I view them. Some are stupid and reprehensible while those I have no issues with got the big WHAAAAAAAAAAA from me to poke fun at the bleeding hearts.

 

 

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

WHAAAAA

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

 

Stupid and pointless

 

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

 

Pointless and stupid

 

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

Pointless and stupid

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

 

Pointless and stupid

 

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

Pointless and stupid

 

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

 

Pointless and stupid

 

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

Pointless and stupid, shoulda cranked up the juice

 

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

 

Poetic Justice. I love it.

 

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

Pointless and stupid

 

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

 

What was that moron thinking?

 

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

---

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

 

That stuff is harmless. How do I know? I've had it spilled on me before on accident.

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

 

The medic was probably busy.

 

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

 

Stupid

 

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

While some of this does qualify as abuse it pales in comparison to the activities these people engage in. Again. Those who perpetrated abuses were tried, convicted and sentenced by a jury of their peers or pled guilty in the first place and recieved what the military thought was an appropriate sentence.

 

The killing or planning thereof of innocent civillians in Western countries as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan makes the petty nonsense those few soldiers took part in look like littering. When we start yanking random innocent people out of their cars and be-heading them on live TV, hanging burned corpses off a bridge in Fallujah and sending suicide car-bombers into crowded markets or blowing up commuter trains and busses in Tehran or Damascus then you can come whine to me about how horrible we are.

 

These people are indeed savages and throwing flowers and candy at them like you want to do is not going to do anything of value. Only by finding and exterminating those responsible for terrorism can we hope to stop it.

Edited July 7, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm reading 'it's good for them to be together to be able to lean on and support each other in this time of disaster..'

 

Just me though..

 

 

I agree. I think Balta took that statement out of context.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I have added my own insightful judgement of each of these acts of "torture" as I view them.  Some are stupid and reprehensible while those I have no issues with got the big WHAAAAAAAAAAA from me to poke fun at the bleeding hearts.

a.  (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

WHAAAAA

b.  (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

 

Stupid and pointless

 

c.  (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

 

Pointless and stupid

 

d.  (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

Pointless and stupid

e.  (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

 

Pointless and stupid

 

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

Pointless and stupid

 

g.  (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

 

Pointless and stupid

 

h.  (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

Pointless and stupid,  shoulda cranked up the juice

 

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest”  (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

 

Poetic Justice.  I love it.

 

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

Pointless and stupid

 

k.  (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

 

What was that moron thinking?

 

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

---

a.  (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

 

That stuff is harmless.  How do I know?  I've had it spilled on me before on accident.

b.  (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

c.  (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

d.  (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

e.  (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

 

The medic was probably busy.

 

g.  (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

 

Stupid

 

h.  (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

While some of this does qualify as abuse it pales in comparison to the activities these people engage in.  Again.  Those who perpetrated abuses were tried, convicted and sentenced by a jury of their peers or pled guilty in the first place and recieved what the military thought was an appropriate sentence. 

 

The killing or planning thereof of innocent civillians in Western countries as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan makes the petty nonsense those few soldiers took part in look like littering.  When we start yanking random innocent people out of their cars and be-heading them on live TV, hanging burned corpses off a bridge in Fallujah and sending suicide car-bombers into crowded markets or blowing up commuter trains and busses in Tehran or Damascus then you can come whine to me about how horrible we are. 

 

These people are indeed savages and throwing flowers and candy at them like you want to do is not going to do anything of value.  Only by finding and exterminating those responsible for terrorism can we hope to stop it.

Nuke, firstly nice job ignoring the first point I made about the US military getting only very minor slaps on the wrists for their abuses and in one case, manslaughter (forcing people to jump off a bridge) You're very good at ignoring the parts that completely invalidate the point you were making.

 

Secondly, you never told me what essential intelligence gathering these various violations of military codes have accomplished outside of more mindless nationalism and arrogance that only further radicalizes even moderate Muslims against the United States. And Nuke, the US military already blows up trains, refrigeration plants, apartment buildings, buses, markets, etc. -- they just call it "collateral damage". And Nuke your statements of inhumanity -- laughing at abuses that these people have gone through, its on the same moral throughway as the radical fundamentalists parading corpses through the streets. You're no different than the radical fundamentalists. You both believe that your cause is anointed and that the other side is completely inhumane and that torture or blurring the lines of proper conduct means nothing if it advances your cause. As much as you try to diverge yourself and the US military from the fundamentalists, you really do have a lot alike...a lot more than you'd probably like to (or will ever) admit.

 

Nice job with the non sequitor about candy and flowers. I believe these people should be arrested if evidence is there that they have something to do with terrorism. If the United States must engage in abuse and torture to achieve its goals, then it has sacrificed the values of the Constitutional republic that was established -- and then the terrorists have truly won.

[Steff]

Nuke.. no offense to you, or the military since my grandfathers and all of my uncles served.. but even they agree that what was done to the prisoners - many of who were detained for no reason - was wrong and that their punishment did not fit the crime.

 

Bad situation all around..

[Cerbaho-WG]

I have added my own insightful judgement of each of these acts of "torture" as I view them.  Some are stupid and reprehensible while those I have no issues with got the big WHAAAAAAAAAAA from me to poke fun at the bleeding hearts.

a.  (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

WHAAAAA

b.  (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

 

Stupid and pointless

 

c.  (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

 

Pointless and stupid

 

d.  (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

Pointless and stupid

e.  (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

 

Pointless and stupid

 

f.   (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

Pointless and stupid

 

g.  (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

 

Pointless and stupid

 

h.  (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

Pointless and stupid,  shoulda cranked up the juice

 

i.   (S) Writing “I am a Rapest”  (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

 

Poetic Justice.  I love it.

 

j.   (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

Pointless and stupid

 

k.  (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

 

What was that moron thinking?

 

l.   (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

---

a.  (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

 

That stuff is harmless.  How do I know?  I've had it spilled on me before on accident.

b.  (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

c.  (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

d.  (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

e.  (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

f.   (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

 

The medic was probably busy.

 

g.  (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

 

Stupid

 

h.  (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

While some of this does qualify as abuse it pales in comparison to the activities these people engage in.  Again.  Those who perpetrated abuses were tried, convicted and sentenced by a jury of their peers or pled guilty in the first place and recieved what the military thought was an appropriate sentence. 

 

The killing or planning thereof of innocent civillians in Western countries as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan makes the petty nonsense those few soldiers took part in look like littering.  When we start yanking random innocent people out of their cars and be-heading them on live TV, hanging burned corpses off a bridge in Fallujah and sending suicide car-bombers into crowded markets or blowing up commuter trains and busses in Tehran or Damascus then you can come whine to me about how horrible we are. 

 

These people are indeed savages and throwing flowers and candy at them like you want to do is not going to do anything of value.  Only by finding and exterminating those responsible for terrorism can we hope to stop it.

 

Thank God people like you don't write the guidelines when it comes to terrorism. Imagine, and I know this might be a hard thing to do, would you particularly enjoy any of the aforementioned offenses occuring to you if you were held prisoner? I thought one of the points to Operation Whip Out Our Collective Cock And Flop It Around was to be better than the terrorists, not stoop down to their level. Beating them with chairs, sodomizing them, and everything else points straight to idiocy and barbarism, something which the military would like to avoid (they can't avoid having f***ing retards write "rapest" on them. I'm almost comforted that a typical High Schooler can spell better than certain jarheads).

 

The simplistic ideology of "Well these guys killed 3000 civilians so we can s*** all over them" doesn't apply here and never should. As I've stated before, the Geneva Convention does apply here, contrary to what President Bush is being told by his legion of yes men. If the US wants to continue with treating their prisoners like subhumans with and without probable cause, I urge them to go right ahead and prepare for the international look of disbelief that the French received after Algiers. What's ironic here is that the US military just stooped down, and perhaps below with rendition tactics, to the level of French paratroopers during The Battle of Algiers. Must be harsh to realize, Nuke, that you and the inferior French military are now on the same page.

Edited July 8, 2005 by Cerbaho-WG

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Thank God people like you don't write the guidelines when it comes to terrorism. Imagine, and I know this might be a hard thing to do, would you particularly enjoy any of the aforementioned offenses occuring to you if you were held prisoner? I thought one of the points to Operation Whip Out Our Collective Cock And Flop It Around was to be better than the terrorists, not stoop down to their level. Beating them with chairs, sodomizing them, and everything else points straight to idiocy and barbarism, something which the military would like to avoid (they can't avoid having f***ing retards write "rapest" on them. I'm almost comforted that a typical High Schooler can spell better than certain jarheads).

 

The simplistic ideology of "Well these guys killed 3000 civilians so we can s*** all over them" doesn't apply here and never should. As I've stated before, the Geneva Convention does apply here, contrary to what President Bush is being told by his legion of yes men. If the US wants to continue with treating their prisoners like subhumans with and without probable cause, I urge them to go right ahead and prepare for the international look of disbelief that the French received after Algiers. What's ironic here is that the US military just stooped down, and perhaps below with rendition tactics, to the level of French paratroopers during The Battle of Algiers. Must be harsh to realize, Nuke, that you and the inferior French military are now on the same page.

 

 

First. I should be so lucky t be treated like that if I was to be taken prisoner by Radical Islamists. Anyone they get their hands on gets tortured....I mean real torture not this BS that the leftys like you trump up as torture......and then beheaded and a video of that would be posted on the internet, Al Jazerra and anywhere else they could get an audience. Either that or my mangled corpse would be hung off a bridge in Fallujah or some other s***hole like it.

 

Secondly these people have no rights whatsoever with their status as terrorist mercenaries. If you bothered to read the Geneva Convention you would note that individuals have to meet certain criterion to recieve its protections. Terrorists do not meet these criterion. There was a nice long thread where this was debated at length and I don't feel like re-hashing it here. Go and actually read the Geneva convention and tell me if a terrorist mercenary REALLY falls under its protection.

Edited July 8, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke, firstly nice job ignoring the first point I made about the US military getting only very minor slaps on the wrists for their abuses and in one case, manslaughter (forcing people to jump off a bridge)  You're very good at ignoring the parts that completely invalidate the point you were making.

 

Secondly, you never told me what essential intelligence gathering these various violations of military codes have accomplished outside of more mindless nationalism and arrogance that only further radicalizes even moderate Muslims against the United States.  And Nuke, the US military already blows up trains, refrigeration plants, apartment buildings, buses, markets, etc. -- they just call it "collateral damage". And Nuke your statements of inhumanity -- laughing at abuses that these people have gone through, its on the same moral throughway as the radical fundamentalists parading corpses through the streets.  You're no different than the radical fundamentalists.  You both believe that your cause is anointed and that the other side is completely inhumane and that torture or blurring the lines of proper conduct means nothing if it advances your cause.  As much as you try to diverge yourself and the US military from the fundamentalists, you really do have a lot alike...a lot more than you'd probably like to (or will ever) admit.

 

Nice job with the non sequitor about candy and flowers.  I believe these people should be arrested if evidence is there that they have something to do with terrorism.  If the United States must engage in abuse and torture to achieve its goals, then it has sacrificed the values of the Constitutional republic that was established -- and then the terrorists have truly won.

 

 

First of all if you have issues with the sentences that these convicted soldiers recieved then dont cry to me about it. Join the military and attempt to change it from within.

 

Secondly. How do you know what intelligence was gathered from detainees in Abu Ghraib or Gitmo when the government hasn't said what was gathered from such interrogations? Whether they gave up vital information under duress or kept screaming "GOD IS GREAT" the whole time will not be known anytime soon by any of us. To add to this point. If one innocent person was spared getting a car bomb drove up his ass or one U.S. soldier's life was spared by information garnered from these interrogations , and I'll bet you my bottom dollar that a lot more than 1 life was spared this way, then it's all worth it to me.

 

Thirdly. I'm getting really tired of you b****ing about colleteral damage and trying to equate us to terrorists in so doing. I'm also tired of trying to put it through your thick skull that terrorists DELIBERATELY target innocent people while our military has gone far out of its way and to great lengths to avoid hurting those who don't deserve it. You might have had a point back during World War 2 when our military deliberately targeted civillians with this logic but certainly not today.

 

Finally. Your side just loves to keep "dumbing down" the defenition of torture. Pretty soon you are gonna start whining torture when some asshole captured on the battlefield ( which by the way is where most of these clowns come from in the first place ) has his flex-cuffs put on too tight.

 

Save your tears for those in London who were the victims of indiscriminant killing this morning as they actually deserve someones tears.

Edited July 8, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[LowerCaseRepublican]

First of all if you have issues with the sentences that these convicted soldiers recieved then dont cry to me about it.  Join the military and attempt to change it from within.

 

Secondly.  How do you know what intelligence was gathered from detainees in Abu Ghraib or Gitmo when the government hasn't said what was gathered from such interrogations?  Whether they gave up vital information under duress or kept screaming "GOD IS GREAT" the whole time will not be known anytime soon by any of us.  To add to this point.  If one innocent person was spared getting a car bomb drove up his ass or one U.S. soldier's life was spared by information garnered from these interrogations , and I'll bet you my bottom dollar that a lot more than 1 life was spared this way, then it's all worth it to me.

 

Thirdly.  I'm getting really tired of you b****ing about colleteral damage and trying to equate us to terrorists in so doing.  I'm also tired of trying to put it through your thick skull that terrorists DELIBERATELY target innocent people while our military has gone far out of its way and to great lengths to avoid hurting those who don't deserve it. You might have had a point back during World War 2 when our military deliberately targeted civillians with this logic but certainly not today. 

 

Finally.  Your side just loves to keep "dumbing down" the defenition of torture.  Pretty soon you are gonna start whining torture when some asshole captured on the battlefield ( which by the way is where most of these clowns come from in the first place ) has his flex-cuffs put on too tight. 

 

Save your tears for those in London who were the victims of indiscriminant killing this morning as they actually deserve someones tears.

 

First, allow me to bow to the king of the straw man and the non-sequitor!

 

Fact remains is that the US heralded them as "good soldiers" and let them continue in their jobs with a very minimal punishment. Others heralded them as great Americans and heroes.

 

Nuke, senior members of JAGs have said that Gitmo has been terribly mishandled. Many senior National Security Council and staff & State Department staff believe that Guantanamo and the Defense Department's treatment of detainees has hurt us in the efforts in the "war on terror". Even FOX News commentators have said that Gitmo is not getting us any vital intelligence -- and their sources there have said that there is no vital reason for it to stay open. As Bill Kristol astutely noted, "Why must we hold people outside of US jurisdiction to operate the war on terror?" Why indeed -- why not a US base? As Kristol further noted, it is because different rules would apply and those rules would be perfectly fine for holding terrorists.

 

So, making the Iraqis jump off a bridge was "going out of their way to avoid hurting those who don't deserve it? And as you say they don't target civilians for torture and harassment -- the Army admits that they are just rounding up people and that many of the people detained in Abu Ghraib etc. have actually been innocent and commited no terrorist related activity. So they're targeting civilians as "potential terrorists". And they really went out of their way with their humane and civilized treatment of detainees.

 

Prisoners at Abu Ghraib are protected under the Geneva Convention, a document signed by 47 countries including the United States that outlines the rules of war and occupation. Because of this, the soldiers responsible for the abuse could be charged with war crimes.

 

"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the detaining power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present convention," Article 13 of the convention reads.

 

"In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoners concerned and carried out in his interest.

 

Abu Ghraib prison "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity," according to the convention.

 

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the American armed forces' criminal laws, also prohibits the abuse of prisoners in military custody, according to Georgetown University professor and retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Gary Solis.

 

So Nuke, if they aren't torture under the Geneva Convention -- then its torture under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is hilarious to hear you condemn Hussein's torture and abuse of the Iraqis as a reason to invade and then the Americans do the exact same damn thing.

Edited July 8, 2005 by LowerCaseRepublican

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

First, allow me to bow to the king of the straw man and the non-sequitor!

 

Fact remains is that the US heralded them as "good soldiers" and let them continue in their jobs with a very minimal punishment.  Others heralded them as great Americans and heroes.

 

Nuke, senior members of JAGs have said that Gitmo has been terribly mishandled.  Many senior National Security Council and staff & State Department staff believe that Guantanamo and the Defense Department's treatment of detainees has hurt us in the efforts in the "war on terror". Even FOX News commentators have said that Gitmo is not getting us any vital intelligence -- and their sources there have said that there is no vital reason for it to stay open.  As Bill Kristol astutely noted, "Why must we hold people outside of US jurisdiction to operate the war on terror?"  Why indeed -- why not a US base?  As Kristol further noted, it is because different rules would apply and those rules would be perfectly fine for holding terrorists.

 

So, making the Iraqis jump off a bridge was "going out of their way to avoid hurting those who don't deserve it?  And as you say they don't target civilians for torture and harassment -- the Army admits that they are just rounding up people and that many of the people detained in Abu Ghraib etc. have actually been innocent and commited no terrorist related activity.  So they're targeting civilians as "potential terrorists".  And they really went out of their way with their humane and civilized treatment of detainees.

 

Prisoners at Abu Ghraib are protected under the Geneva Convention, a document signed by 47 countries including the United States that outlines the rules of war and occupation. Because of this, the soldiers responsible for the abuse could be charged with war crimes.

 

"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the detaining power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present convention," Article 13 of the convention reads.

 

"In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoners concerned and carried out in his interest.

 

Abu Ghraib prison "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity," according to the convention.

 

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the American armed forces' criminal laws, also prohibits the abuse of prisoners in military custody, according to Georgetown University professor and retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Gary Solis.

 

So Nuke, if they aren't torture under the Geneva Convention -- then its torture under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  It is hilarious to hear you condemn Hussein's torture and abuse of the Iraqis as a reason to invade and then the Americans do the exact same damn thing.

 

 

I'm just beating my head against the wall here.

 

 

This is Article 4 of the Geneva Convention which describes what a prisoner of war is and as such serves as a litmus test to who is protected by it. Please tell me where terrorists who hide among the population, who drive car bombs into crowded markets full of innocent people, who engage in kidnappings are protected under this? YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT!!!

 

Art. 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; © 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.

 

 

Secondly. Guantanamo is on U.S. soil just the same as Ft. Hood or Ft. Benning or any U.S. embassy overseas. You and Mr. Kristol are right though, since these people have no rights under the Constitution ( The Supreme Court said as much in the Qurinin (sp) decision of 1942 ) and no rights under the Geneva Convention as I have outlined above then the rules of their detention would not change. Your blather about the UCMJ is more hilarious to me than it is to you because that too applies to PRISONERS OF WAR.....which these people are clearly not.

 

Again....slowly for the thick skulled........The Supreme Court in Quirin clearly defined that activities such as those engaged in by the terrorists of today make those caught "ILLEGAL COMBATATANTS" not Prisoners of War. You just continue to assign rights to these people when they DON'T HAVE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

 

 

Nice backpedal on your third point. You totally changed the subject on the issue of whether we're targeting the innocent or not. Your argument about colleteral damage was horses*** to begin with so now you're changing the subject and trying to say that the policy of the U.S. military is to murder Iraqi citizens as in the case of the bridge incident. That is horses***. Those who perpetrated such acts are tried, convicted and punished in accordance with the UCMJ.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Since certain people around here keep on assigning Constitutional rights, Rights under the Geneva Conventions and other assorted documents allow me, for the thousandth time, to walk the leftist masses through why these terrorist assholes have NO rights.

 

The Supreme Courts Quirin Decision of 1942 defines for us what an illegal combatant is. In so doing they denied Constitutional protections to those who are shown to be "illegal combatants" as defined in this decision.

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...law/quirin.html

 

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.

 

Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations. The argument leaves out of account the nature of the offense which the Government charges and which the Act of Congress, by incorporating the law of war, punishes. It is that each petitioner, in circumstances which gave him the status of an enemy belligerent, passed our military and naval lines and defenses or went behind those lines, in civilian dress and with hostile purpose. The offense was complete when with that purpose they entered-or, having so entered, they remained upon-our territory in time of war without uniform or other appropriate means of identification. For that reason, even when committed by a citizen, the offense is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other.

 

But petitioners insist that even if the offenses with which they are charged are offenses against the law of war, their trial is subject to the requirement of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and that such trials must be by jury in a civil court...In the light of this long-continued and consistent interpretation we must conclude that Section 2 of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be taken to have extended the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission, or to have required that offenses against the law of war not triable by jury at common law be tried only in the civil courts....We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury.

 

 

Once again Article 4 of the Geneva Convention clearly defines the criterion of who is a "Prisoner of War". Terrorist assholes like those we capture on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan do not meet these criterion

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;

 

© 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.

 

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

 

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

 

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

 

When lefties around here try again to assign rights to these people that they do not have I will simply cut and paste this into my reply in order to save me the time of going back and finding this in the SLAP archives.

Edited July 8, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So they have no rights, people laugh when many released prisoners are released discussing their torture, laugh when the military discusses the extent of the torture as widespread, say that they are inhuman etc. etc. -- and then have to wonder why people would hate us? Please. Your moral throughway is the exact same mentality of the fundamentalists that accesorize with dynamite.

 

Justifying torture and abusing people -- and Nuke a lot of the people in Abu Ghraib etc. are not taken off the battlefield -- Several military intelligence officers have made it known to human rights groups like the Red Cross that in the intelligence officers' opinion "70-90% had been arrested by mistake." But since when are little things like facts going to get in the way of Nuke's endless super-nationalism?

 

Bush had said in March: “I expect them to be treated, the POWs, I expect to be treated humanely, just like we’re treating the prisoners that we have captured humanely." If sodomy with a broomstick is humane, then I shudder to think what the US considers is inhumane.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

So they have no rights, people laugh when many released prisoners are released discussing their torture, laugh when the military discusses the extent of the torture as widespread, say that they are inhuman etc. etc. -- and then have to wonder why people would hate us?  Please. Your moral throughway is the exact same mentality of the fundamentalists that accesorize with dynamite.

 

Justifying torture and abusing people -- and Nuke a lot of the people in Abu Ghraib etc. are not taken off the battlefield -- Several military intelligence officers have made it known to human rights groups like the Red Cross that in the intelligence officers' opinion "70-90% had been arrested by mistake."  But since when are little things like facts going to get in the way of Nuke's endless super-nationalism?

 

Bush had said in March: “I expect them to be treated, the POWs, I expect to be treated humanely, just like we’re treating the prisoners that we have captured humanely."  If sodomy with a broomstick is humane, then I shudder to think what the US considers is inhumane.

 

 

Sodomy with a broomstick is not humane.....I have said as much and so has the military who punished those responsible for it. But with your dumbed down defenition of inhumane treatment I'm surprised you're not pining to get them access to Al Jazeera on TV and conjugal visits.

 

 

Now that you've lost the rights argument......again.......what does the U.S. consider inhumane? How about be-headings? How about hanging mangled corpses from a bridge? How about the mindless and indiscriminant killing of people trying to shop or go to work?

Edited July 8, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Cerbaho-WG]

First.  I should be so lucky t be treated like that if I was to be taken prisoner by Radical Islamists.  Anyone they get their hands on gets tortured....I mean real torture not this BS that the leftys like you trump up as torture......and then beheaded and a video of that would be posted on the internet, Al Jazerra and anywhere else they could get an audience.  Either that or my mangled corpse would be hung off a bridge in Fallujah or some other s***hole like it.

 

Secondly these people have no rights whatsoever with their status as terrorist mercenaries.  If you bothered to read the Geneva Convention you would note that individuals have to meet certain criterion to recieve its protections.  Terrorists do not meet these criterion.  There was a nice long thread where this was debated at length and I don't feel like re-hashing it here.  Go and actually read the Geneva convention and tell me if a terrorist mercenary REALLY falls under its protection.

 

Why do I seriously doubt that you have read the Geneva Conventions in full? Could it be that your jingoism is attemtping to demean me because I don't have the same viewpoint as you? Could be. But more likely, it's that you are acting like a Conventional scholar when you are in fact not one. The article which you quoted actually refutes your claim if the word "Party" can be interpreted in any way shape or form. Now unless there's some "Geneva Convention in Exile" group that I'm missing, please show it to me.

 

The bullet I want to note is:

 

(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.

 

Now either way it's hard to argue whether or not the terrorists were part of the original conflict, as none of us really know. What has to be done is an assumption of whether the terrorists, if placed along side the Iraqi guard and the American forces, would act as independent and attack everyone or just one force. Without any doubt whatsoever, the terrorists would fight alongside the Iraqis and have probably done so up to the announcement of MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and LOOK HOW BIG MY COCK IS. If any mercenary or member fought alongside the Iraqi forced, they would fall under protection of the Geneva Conventions. It's not as simple as you put it, as usual, NUKE, there's a lot of wiggle room in these documents and you're not allowing for such. Once again, everything isn't black and white.

 

Also, please respond to French comment, I'd love to see you refute that one.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Why do I seriously doubt that you have read the Geneva Conventions in full? Could it be that your jingoism is attemtping to demean me because I don't have the same viewpoint as you? Could be. But more likely, it's that you are acting like a Conventional scholar when you are in fact not one. The article which you quoted actually refutes your claim if the word "Party" can be interpreted in any way shape or form. Now unless there's some "Geneva Convention in Exile" group that I'm missing, please show it to me.

 

The bullet I want to note is:

 

(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.

 

Now either way it's hard to argue whether or not the terrorists were part of the original conflict, as none of us really know. What has to be done is an assumption of whether the terrorists, if placed along side the Iraqi guard and the American forces, would act as independent and attack everyone or just one force. Without any doubt whatsoever, the terrorists would fight alongside the Iraqis and have probably done so up to the announcement of MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and LOOK HOW BIG MY COCK IS. If any mercenary or member fought alongside the Iraqi forced, they would fall under protection of the Geneva Conventions. It's not as simple as you put it, as usual, NUKE, there's a lot of wiggle room in these documents and you're not allowing for such. Once again, everything isn't black and white.

 

Also, please respond to French comment, I'd love to see you refute that one.

 

 

Now you're going to tell me that based on your speculation that they would have fought alongside an organization that now ceases to exist that they are acting within the Geneva Conventions? That's ludicrous!

 

To further debunk that point, with their indiscriminant bombings of U.S., Iraqi Army and Iraqi police forces and civillians the facts of what's going on there serve to answer your question of who they would side with for you. The answer is neither. These people who are conducting this insurgency have sworn loyalty to Zarqawi who has sworn loyalty to Usama Bin Laden. The answer to the question of who they would side with is ultimately Usama Bin Laden. To go further than that, even if they did fight alongside the Saddam-era Army it has been 2 years since that force was rendered defunct and their actions since then, under the direction of an illegal terrorist organization and not as members of recognized armed forces remove any air of doubt as to their status as illegal combatants. Had they been captured fighting alongside Iraqi forces during the initial invasion then your point would be valid. Not today.

 

Also, how can you account for the foregin fighters who have entered the country illegally since the end of major combat operations and engaged in activities which violate the very laws of war you are trying to protect them under?

 

Additionally. I can't help but scratch my head at why you are so eager to split hairs looking for any loophole you can to assign rights to these terrorist criminals.

 

In the question of your little French paratroopers analogy I had to do some quick reading but your analogy is a little off. The French engaged in such activities as electro-shock treatment and drowning among other things. They did it with the tacit approval of the French government and as a result none were punished.

 

The murder of Iraqi's by U.S. soldiers and other acts like sodomizing prisoners and the sexually explicit photos of prisoners was not tolerated and all the soldiers found to be involved were prosecuted.

Edited July 8, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[CubKilla]

NUKE.....

 

Why do you even attempt to sway those here that think that the US is the most barbaric and inhumane country ever? I mean, c'mon. Common sense went out the door years ago with the few radicals on this board. Like radical islamo-facists, they cannot be dealt with reasonably. Do as I do now..... ignore them.

 

Life is good when the Sox are 31 games above .500, the Cubs are pushing the panic button, and SoxTalk is getting shout-outs from Hawk and DJ. Don't waste your time trying to deal with the few here that make SOXTALK their political bully pulpit. You're just feeding the monster within. I know, for a fact, that if you just ignore them, they will cease to post their ridiculous BS because they will not get the desired reaction out of you. No matter what you post, you will ALWAYS be wrong and they will ALWAYS be right. For every point you make, they'll make a point to counter. Thus, a vicious cycle.

 

Just let it go. It's not worth it.

Edited July 8, 2005 by CubKilla

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

NUKE.....

 

Why do you even attempt to sway those here that think that the US is the most barbaric and inhumane country ever? I mean, c'mon. Common sense went out the door years ago with the few radicals on this board. Like radical islamo-facists, they cannot be dealt with reasonably. Do as I do now..... ignore them.

 

Life is good when the Sox are 31 games above .500, the Cubs are pushing the panic button, and SoxTalk is getting shout-outs from Hawk and DJ. Don't waste your time trying to deal with the few here that make SOXTALK their political bully pulpit. You're just feeding the monster within. I know, for a fact, that if you just ignore them, they will cease to post their ridiculous BS because they will not get the desired reaction out of you. No matter what you post, you will ALWAYS be wrong and they will ALWAYS be right. For every point you make, they'll make a point to counter. Thus, a vicious cycle.

 

Just let it go. It's not worth it.

 

 

You're probably right. Facts don't seem to have any effect on people who continue to defend vicious murderers.

[Balta1701]

You're probably right.  Facts don't seem to have any effect on people who continue to defend vicious murderers.

There was a time when one of the things that made America so great, that made America a nation that others wanted to emulate, was that America would take the most obvious, vicious murderer and treat him exactly the same as a person wrongfully accused of a crime. An America where everyone was treated fairly. An America based on justice.

[KipWellsFan]

There was a time when one of the things that made America so great, that made America a nation that others wanted to emulate, was that America would take the most obvious, vicious murderer and treat him exactly the same as a person wrongfully accused of a crime.  An America where everyone was treated fairly.  An America based on justice.

 

Yup then Al Franken, Howard Stern and Chelsea Clinton came and ruined it all