Not torture

[Yurt]

What is torture? Not this:

[Yurt]

I thought it appropriate to bring this topic here. Let go your insults, comments etc, what exactly is wrong with the pic?

[OCA]

What is torture? Not this:

Actually Yurt, there was no torture committed at Abu Ghraib as torture is commonly defined. Humiliation? Degradation? Sure as hell was! But none of the accusations of torture or death has ever been proven. Abu Ghraib was nothing but good soldiers doing a good job...............and their government sold them down the road to appease namby pambies.

[Yurt]

Actually Yurt, there was no torture committed at Abu Ghraib as torture is commonly defined. Humiliation? Degradation? Sure as hell was! But none of the accusations of torture or death has ever been proven. Abu Ghraib was nothing but good soldiers doing a good job...............and their government sold them down the road to appease namby pambies.

That is the point of the thread, what is torture.... That guy is not being tortured. However, you nor I were there to know whether anyone one was actually tortured. People have made a claim based on pictures, I say, the pictures do not show torture.

[OCA]

That is the point of the thread, what is torture.... That guy is not being tortured. However, you nor I were there to know whether anyone one was actually tortured. People have made a claim based on pictures, I say, the pictures do not show torture.

Based upon that you are correct, that pic does not show torture nor do any of the other pics that are listed on the site where I got that one.

[LiberalNation]

Torture is in the eye of the beholder. Some interrogation tactics are boarderline I'd say. Not electric shock, beating, nail ripping out torture of course but just because it's on a lower level doesn't make A OK.

If it was an American in that picture instead of an Iraqi I'd bet you'd be condemning it.

[Dilloduck]

Torture is in the eye of the beholder.

Not really. There are actual laws for some reason.

[JohnDoe]

Not really. There are actual laws for some reason.yes and I believe in those laws there is something to do with the use of dogs....but I am not completely certain, just thought I had read it somewhere....maybe it was in the Geneva Convention?

jd

[Mr. P]

What is torture? Not this:

Torture? I went through more than that in training.

[Roomy]

When we start televising the beheadings of innocents then the dogooders and apologists (may) have a leg to stand on.

[jimnyc]

When we start televising the beheadings of innocents then the dogooders and apologists (may) have a leg to stand on.

Agreed, Roomy.

Funny how the "apologists" don't even start a single thread condemning the actions of those types of animals but they'll be the first to condemn the actions of our own soldiers for using dogs to intimidate prisoners.

[Sir Evil]

maybe it was in the Geneva Convention?

jd

:lol:

What a joke!

[LiberalNation]

Funny how the "apologists" don't even start a single thread condemning the actions of those types of animals but they'll be the first to condemn the actions of our own soldiers for using dogs to intimidate prisoners.

Bull.

[Sir Evil]

Bull.

Actually it's quite true for the most part. Of course you would'nt wanna come of sounding as though you are somewhat supportive for the decision in the first place so whatever can be thrown out there in a negative way the better even if it means not condemning the torture our side has been put under.

[jimnyc]

Bull.

LN, you can be somewhat rational at times, and I know you take your own stances and don't follow the "liberal handbook". But there are a few on this very board who will bash Bush, this administration and the actions of our soldiers at every opportunity possible. These very same people never start a thread to condemn the atrocities committed by our enemy, and hell, they don't even contribute in the threads started by others condemning such actions. So don't day it's bull because you think it was aimed towards you, because it wasn't aimed towards you - and it certainly isn't bull - it's fact.

[LiberalNation]

So don't day it's bull because you think it was aimed towards you, because it wasn't aimed towards you
Ahh never mind then.

I have condemned terrorist atrocity with threads on this board.

[Roomy]

Ahh never mind then.

I have condemned terrorist atrocity with threads on this board.

Sometimes, your own self importance is a hindrance.:cool:

[JohnDoe]

President bush did anounce to the World that Iraq would be held under the Geneva Convention, unlike Afghaniston.

This being the case, and our prisoners in Iraq are considered prisoners of war, as President Bush had said, then yes yurt, it was against the Law of the Usa because we SIGNED the Geneva Convention Treaty and it was passed by 2/3's of the Senate, thus constitutionally bound!

And in the treatment of desigated prisoners of war, again as president bush said they were, they can NOT EVEN BE INTIMIDATED, and are not required to give anything but rank and serial number and name, OR in not a uniformed enemy, something similar...!

I just got done rereading this Prisoner treatment part of the Geneva Convention....

here is the link on treatment of prisoners during war by the Occupier.

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

[manu1959]

President bush did anounce to the World that Iraq would be held under the Geneva Convention, unlike Afghaniston.

This being the case, and our prisoners in Iraq are considered prisoners of war, as President Bush had said, then yes yurt, it was against the Law of the Usa because we SIGNED the Geneva Convention Treaty and it was passed by 2/3's of the Senate, thus constitutional bound!

And in the treatment of desigated prisoners of war, again as president bush said they were, they can NOT EVEN BE INTIMIDATED, and are not required to give anything by rank and serial number and name, OR in not a uniformed enemy, something similar...!

I just got done rereading this Prisoner treatment part of the Geneva Convention....

here is the link on treatment of prisoners during war by the Occupier.

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

two things...one gotta a link to: "President bush did anounce to the World that Iraq would be held under the Geneva Convention, unlike Afghaniston."

terrorists are not covered by the geneva convention.....

[JohnDoe]

two things...one gotta a link to: "President bush did anounce to the World that Iraq would be held under the Geneva Convention, unlike Afghaniston."

terrorists are not covered by the geneva convention.....

I believe YOU are wrong on this one Manu....

and here is your link, showing the USA Government, agreed/declared Iraq as covered under the Geneva Convention.... a google can get you Bush's transcript of his press conference regarding this....


Memo Lets CIA Take Detainees Out of Iraq
Practice Is Called Serious Breach of Geneva Conventions

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page A01

At the request of the CIA, the Justice Department drafted a confidential memo that authorizes the agency to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation -- a practice that international legal specialists say contravenes the Geneva Conventions.

One intelligence official familiar with the operation said the CIA has used the March draft memo as legal support for secretly transporting as many as a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months. The agency has concealed the detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other authorities, the official said.

The draft opinion, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and dated March 19, 2004, refers to both Iraqi citizens and foreigners in Iraq, who the memo says are protected by the treaty. It permits the CIA to take Iraqis out of the country to be interrogated for a "brief but not indefinite period." It also says the CIA can permanently remove persons deemed to be "illegal aliens" under "local immigration law."

Some specialists in international law say the opinion amounts to a reinterpretation of one of the most basic rights of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians during wartime and occupation, including insurgents who were not part of Iraq's military.

The treaty prohibits the "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory . . . regardless of their motive."

The 1949 treaty notes that a violation of this particular provision constitutes a "grave breach" of the accord, and thus a "war crime" under U.S. federal law, according to a footnote in the Justice Department draft. "For these reasons," the footnote reads, "we recommend that any contemplated relocations of 'protected persons' from Iraq to facilitate interrogation be carefully evaluated for compliance with Article 49 on a case by case basis." It says that even persons removed from Iraq retain the treaty's protections, which would include humane treatment and access to international monitors.

During the war in Afghanistan, the administration ruled that al Qaeda fighters were not considered "protected persons" under the convention. Many of them were transferred out of the country to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere for interrogations. By contrast, the U.S. government deems former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and military, as well as insurgents and other civilians in Iraq, to be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

International law experts contacted for this article described the legal reasoning contained in the Justice Department memo as unconventional and disturbing.

"The overall thrust of the Convention is to keep from moving people out of the country and out of the protection of the Convention," said former senior military attorney Scott Silliman, executive director of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security. "The memorandum seeks to create a legal regime justifying conduct that the international community clearly considers in violation of international law and the Convention." Silliman reviewed the document at The Post's request.


Hope that helps.... :)

jd

[manu1959]

I believe YOU are wrong on this one Manu....
and here is your link, showing the USA Government, agreed/declared Iraq as covered under the Geneva Convention.... a google can get you Bush's transcript of his press conference regarding this....
Hope that helps.... :)

jd

you link confirms what i said...

terrorist are not protected.....

soldiers in uniform fighting for a country under a flag are protected.....you know like our guys.....the ones that are shot and hung and dragged thru the streets not to mention reporters beheaded....

those fighting in iraq against us are the former not the latter...they should all be shot on sight under martial law as iranian spies or terrorists....

[Sir Evil]

you link confirms what i said...

terrorist are not protected.....



That's correct, but the simple thought of anyone crying the geneva convention over this stuff is a shame when those terrorists commit the acts that they do. Funny thing is that it's brought up often but we know that is simply somethine else that can be blamed on the right as if they are over there to see it upheld at every moment.

[manu1959]

That's correct, but the simple thought of anyone crying the geneva convention over this stuff is a shame when those terrorists commit the acts that they do. Funny thing is that it's brought up often but we know that is simply somethine else that can be blamed on the right as if they are over there to see it upheld at every moment.

and from the great source of the left:

to be a pow and be protected by the GC

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:


4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:



that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 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.
4.1.6 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.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of theenemy and chaplains of the enemy.

[manu1959]

That's correct, but the simple thought of anyone crying the geneva convention over this stuff is a shame when those terrorists commit the acts that they do. Funny thing is that it's brought up often but we know that is simply somethine else that can be blamed on the right as if they are over there to see it upheld at every moment.

and from the great source of the left:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
to be a pow and be protected by the GC

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:


4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:



that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 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.
4.1.6 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.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of theenemy and chaplains of the enemy.

[JohnDoe]

you link confirms what i said...

terrorist are not protected.....

soldiers in uniform fighting for a country under a flag are protected.....you know like our guys.....the ones that are shot and hung and dragged thru the streets not to mention reporters beheaded....

those fighting in iraq against us are the former not the latter...they should all be shot on sight under martial law as iranian spies or terrorists.... Really?

Is Alqaeda a terrorist?

or Are the Insurgents terrorists?

Or how about the Bathists, are they terrorists?

Or how about the Iranians setting bombs there, are they terrorists?

Or how about any Civilian in Iraq, are they terrorists?


ALL of those captives are covered under the Geneva Convention, Manu, even AlQaeda and the Iranians would be covered because they would fall under any civilian in Iraq one would think? If not they were in a recognizable uniform, which is covered...?

And also, it is required under the convention to put all captives before a Tribunal to determine their status immediately upon their capture, you read that right?

So, perhaps there are those that would be labeled as Illegal Enemy combatants like they were in Afghanistan and they would be what you are calling terrorists, but I don't believe so because it was specifically said and government backed that Alqaeda and civilians and the Insurgents in Iraq were covered with Prisoner of war protection via the Geneva Convention....by President Bush and the USA Government's backing... which the article stated.


During the war in Afghanistan, the administration ruled that al Qaeda fighters were not considered "protected persons" under the convention. Many of them were transferred out of the country to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere for interrogations. By contrast, the U.S. government deems former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and military, as well as insurgents and other civilians in Iraq, to be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Again, I don't have a dog in this hunt, just saying it like I believe it is....

jd

[hjmick]

Torture is in the eye of the beholder.


Not really. There are actual laws for some reason.

You're wrong, Dillo, torture is indeed in the eye of the beholder. I know that I, at times, find it quite torturous to read some of the posts that spring up around here while at the same time I recognize that others may not feel the same way. :D

[Mr. P]

You're wrong, Dillo, torture is indeed in the eye of the beholder. I know that I, at times, find it quite torturous to read some of the posts that spring up around here while at the same time I recognize that others may not feel the same way. :D

:laugh2:

[OCA]

President bush did anounce to the World that Iraq would be held under the Geneva Convention, unlike Afghaniston.

This being the case, and our prisoners in Iraq are considered prisoners of war, as President Bush had said, then yes yurt, it was against the Law of the Usa because we SIGNED the Geneva Convention Treaty and it was passed by 2/3's of the Senate, thus constitutionally bound!

And in the treatment of desigated prisoners of war, again as president bush said they were, they can NOT EVEN BE INTIMIDATED, and are not required to give anything by rank and serial number and name, OR in not a uniformed enemy, something similar...!

I just got done rereading this Prisoner treatment part of the Geneva Convention....

here is the link on treatment of prisoners during war by the Occupier.

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

Wrong, only uniformed armies are covered under the Geneva Convention.

Nice try...........appeaser.

[bullypulpit]

Actually Yurt, there was no torture committed at Abu Ghraib as torture is commonly defined. Humiliation? Degradation? Sure as hell was! But none of the accusations of torture or death has ever been proven. Abu Ghraib was nothing but good soldiers doing a good job...............and their government sold them down the road to appease namby pambies.

As usual, you're wrong on this issue. The photos from Abu Ghraib depict actions which are defined by Article 1, Para. 1 of the <a href=For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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 does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.>UN Convention Against Torture</a> states:

<blockquote>For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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 does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.</blockquote>

The Convention goes on to state that extreme rendition (refouler), as has been practiced under the Bush administration, is also a violation of human rights. It is important to note here that as a signatory to this treaty, ratified by the Senate, that under the Constitution, that treaty assumes the same force as US law passed by Congress and Supreme Court decisions. The actions at Abu Ghraib are in direct contradiction of the protocols and protections of the Geneva Conventions, which the US is also signatory to.

And, just as icing on the cake, GITMO is an interrogation camp...operating in direct violation of the Geneva conventions. And, just for your reference, Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions states that:

<blockquote>The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in <b>all circumstances</b>.</blockquote>

The Supreme Court has also ruled that common article 3 also applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda.

Since the US is also signatory to this treaty, any violations of it are also violations of US law.

[diuretic]

Wanna know something? None of it matters. The harm has been done.

[JohnDoe]

Wrong, only uniformed armies are covered under the Geneva Convention.

Nice try...........appeaser.

utter bullshit OCA, why not get yourself INFORMED instead of keeping your head in this hole that you seem to be dwelling in....

ALSO, the torture at abu ghraib KILLED PEOPLE....

Are you really denying that too???? even though we PROSECUTED and CONVICTED soldiers of murder for their actions?

:clap:

[jimnyc]

utter bullshit OCA, why not get yourself INFORMED instead of keeping your head in this hole that you seem to be dwelling in....

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what OCA said. One may argue about "civilians" from the Geneva Convention, but that can easily be countered by showing that they were 'armed' or using force against our soldiers.

Directly from the Geneva Convention, Article 4


That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/genevacon/blart-4.htm
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590007?OpenDocument

[bullypulpit]

utter bullshit OCA, why not get yourself INFORMED instead of keeping your head in this hole that you seem to be dwelling in....

ALSO, the torture at abu ghraib KILLED PEOPLE....

Are you really denying that too???? even though we PROSECUTED and CONVICTED soldiers of murder for their actions?

:clap:

I wouldn't call it much of a prosecution. The harshest penalty yet handed out for ANY of the abuses at Abu Ghraib was 5 months in the brig and a BCD.

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't call it much of a prosecution. The harshest penalty yet handed out for ANY of the abuses at Abu Ghraib was 5 months in the brig and a BCD.

Why do you guys insist on being wrong so often?

Charles Graner - sentenced to 10 years
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/16/graner.court.martial/

Lynndie England - sentenced to 3 years
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9492624/

[Sir Evil]

Still the bottom line remains that when the subject of the geneava convention is brought up it almost always has the twist of how wrong our soldiers treated prisoner by those on the left, and the argument for what about our people and the way they were beaheaded by those on the right. Truth of the matter is that there is no real comparison when you look at it but yet many continue to use it as a tool to discredit the administration. Real shame when you need talking points to belittle the president while the others are out there being beheaded, and dismantled from limb to limb.

[Hagbard Celine]

Why do you guys insist on being wrong so often?

Charles Graner - sentenced to 10 years
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/16/graner.court.martial/

Lynndie England - sentenced to 3 years
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9492624/

Jim, you guys, the military apologists/sympathizers on the board, constantly berate us other members when we call a spade a spade and say soldiers should be punished when they commit crime and maybe you have a point. You don't have a point that I can sympathize with or accept. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we all should just let the military and its employees do whatever they hell they want whenever they want to whomever they want and let them get away with it scotfree because this is "war" and that somehow changes the rules civilized people live by. Maybe. Maybe not.
The question still occurs to me: Why treat people like that? Why strip them naked and pose them in homoerotic poses and hold dogs on them while they're standing naked and unarmed with their genitals tucked back between their legs so they don't get bitten-off by the dogs? Does it look like they're being "interrogated" in those Abu-graib photos? It doesn't to me. It just looks like our soldiers were being mean-as-hell for no reason.
Do you really not see a problem with the way the detainees (read "prisoners") were treated in the Abu-graib fiasco?

[Hagbard Celine]

Still the bottom line remains that when the subject of the geneava convention is brought up it almost always has the twist of how wrong our soldiers treated prisoner by those on the left, and the argument for what about our people and the way they were beaheaded by those on the right. Truth of the matter is that there is no real comparison when you look at it but yet many continue to use it as a tool to discredit the administration. Real shame when you need talking points to belittle the president while the others are out there being beheaded, and dismantled from limb to limb.

The point you all seem to be missing is that we're supposed to be better than the terrorists. Just because they do something doesn't give us poise to lower our standards of behavior.

[jimnyc]

Jim, you guys, the military apologists/sympathizers on the board, constantly berate us other members when we call a spade a spade and say soldiers should be punished when they commit crime and maybe you have a point. You don't have a point that I can sympathize with or accept. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we all should just let the military and its employees do whatever they hell they want whenever they want to whomever they want and let them get away with it scotfree because this is "war" and that somehow changes the rules civilized people live by. Maybe. Maybe not.
The question still occurs to me: Why treat people like that? Why strip them naked and pose them in homoerotic poses and hold dogs on them while they're standing naked and unarmed with their genitals tucked back between their legs so they don't get bitten-off by the dogs? Does it look like they're being "interrogated" in those Abu-graib photos? It doesn't to me. It just looks like our soldiers were being mean-as-hell for no reason.
Do you really not see a problem with the way the detainees (read "prisoners") were treated in the Abu-graib fiasco?

I made no point and you're simply putting words in my mouth. These guys were found guilty and therefore are doing prison time, I make no apologies for them whatsoever. I simply pointed out that once again someone from the left was spewing factually incorrect information.

[Sir Evil]

The point you all seem to be missing is that we're supposed to be better than the terrorists. Just because they do something doesn't give us poise to lower our standards of behavior.

Haggy, you will also notice that those who do what I mentioned above wen bringing up the geneva convention also the same that next go to the higher standard issue. I don't condone the torture, it's not the issue of my point. It's pretty factual as I stated that there is no comparison in what we see as torture yet many keep reciting the rule of the convention when the subject arrives.

For the handful of issues that were committed from our side the very obvious becomes very clear by those crying the rules, and the higher standard issue is all that I am pointing out.

[Dilloduck]

The point you all seem to be missing is that we're supposed to be better than the terrorists. Just because they do something doesn't give us poise to lower our standards of behavior.

IMHO the real issue here is how do you fight those who have no qualms about using lower standards when they attack America ? It appears to me that when our enemies commit acts like beheading, the action is rationalized almost to the point of condoning it. Very little condemnation but a WHOLE lot of focus on how America responds to it. What happens when those with the "lower standards" kill those who are trying to maintain high standards?

[bullypulpit]

Why do you guys insist on being wrong so often?

Charles Graner - sentenced to 10 years
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/16/graner.court.martial/

Lynndie England - sentenced to 3 years
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9492624/

Just did it to make you happy. More to the point not one up ranks, you know, ossifers, have been convicted of anything, and being up the chain of command, they are responsible for what goes on on their watch. And let's not forget how many times the Bush administration has sought exemption from prosecution for those in the military and intel communities who engage in torture and onther such acts.

And who can forget then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez seeking to justify torture by redefining it.

[Nukeman]

Let us not forget that when the US handed over the running of these prisons in Iraq the prisoner begged to be taken with them because they knew that the actual torture would begin when the US was not in sight.

The prisoners knew that they would be tortured and killed at the hands of their own countrymen before they ever would by the Americn soldiers..

[Nukeman]

Befor you ask for it heres the link to one story..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/10/wirq10.xml



Tortured screams ring out as Iraqis take over Abu Ghraib
By Ali Saber in Baghdad and Gethin Chamberlain
Last Updated: 12:34am BST 11/09/2006



The notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad is at the centre of fresh abuse allegations just a week after it was handed over to Iraqi authorities, with claims that inmates are being tortured by their new captors.


US soldier Lynndie England was convicted on six charges of abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib
Staff at the jail say the Iraqi authorities have moved dozens of terrorist suspects into Abu Ghraib from the controversial Interior Ministry detention centre in Jadriyah, where United States troops last year discovered 169 prisoners who had been tortured and starved.

An independent witness who went into Abu Ghraib this week told The Sunday Telegraph that screams were coming from the cell blocks housing the terrorist suspects. Prisoners released from the jail this week spoke of routine torture of terrorism suspects and on Wednesday, 27 prisoners were hanged in the first mass execution since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Conditions in the rest of the jail were grim, with an overwhelming stench of excrement, prisoners crammed into cells for all but 20 minutes a day, food rations cut to just rice and water and no air conditioning.

Some of the small number of prisoners who remained in the jail after the Americans left said they had pleaded to go with their departing captors, rather than be left in the hands of Iraqi guards.

[Dilloduck]

IMHO the real issue here is how do you fight those who have no qualms about using lower standards when they attack America ? It appears to me that when our enemies commit acts like beheading, the action is rationalized almost to the point of condoning it. Very little condemnation but a WHOLE lot of focus on how America responds to it. What happens when those with the "lower standards" kill those who are trying to maintain high standards?

WELL ?? What happens when these poor little "weak" countries who aren't held to any standards have the ability to destroy the big bad countries who can't deviate from the rules ?

[Hagbard Celine]

WELL ?? What happens when these poor little "weak" countries who aren't held to any standards have the ability to destroy the big bad countries who can't deviate from the rules ?

I think you're way overestimating the power of rocks and camels there dillo.

[Dilloduck]

I think you're way overestimating the power of rocks and camels there dillo.

I think you are understimating the power of chopping a head off and creating terror by intentionally killing people who are in the market buying food.

[Hagbard Celine]

I think you are understimating the power of chopping a head off and creating terror by intentionally killing people who are in the market buying food.

Oh, you're talking about Arab countries. I thought you said something about "big bad countries." YouTube videos of beheadings don't have much effect, if any, on "big bad countries" dillo. Most Americans watch more violent things over their cornflakes in the morning than that.

[Dilloduck]

Oh, you're talking about Arab countries. I thought you said something about "big bad countries." YouTube videos of beheadings don't have much effect, if any, on "big bad countries" dillo. Most Americans watch more violent things over their cornflakes in the morning than that.

I rest my case---Americans go "ho hum" watching a beheading yet get all bent out of shape when they see a prisoner made to strip.

[bullypulpit]

Let us not forget that when the US handed over the running of these prisons in Iraq the prisoner begged to be taken with them because they knew that the actual torture would begin when the US was not in sight.

The prisoners knew that they would be tortured and killed at the hands of their own countrymen before they ever would by the Americn soldiers..

What better way for the Bush administration to wash their hands of it and still see their policies carried out.

[manu1959]

What better way for the Bush administration to wash their hands of it and still see their policies carried out.

yes....bush and his cronnies killed thousands in the iraqi torture chambers :lame2:

[Hagbard Celine]

I rest my case---Americans go "ho hum" watching a beheading yet get all bent out of shape when they see a prisoner made to strip.

That's because our soldiers and citizens are supposed to be living up to a higher standard. What soldiers and citizens do abroad reflects on the rest of us here at home. It's a given that terrorist animals are evil and our enemies but do our soldiers have to act like them to fight them?

[Dilloduck]

That's because our soldiers and citizens are supposed to be living up to a higher standard. What soldiers and citizens do abroad reflects on the rest of us here at home. It's a given that terrorist animals are evil and our enemies but do our soldiers have to act like them to fight them?

so how you kill people is somehow very important ?

[Hagbard Celine]

so how you kill people is somehow very important ?

Well, yeah! You're the one who's been harping on the differences between torture and televised beheadings! I think most would agree that men killed in combat died in a more "acceptable" or "honorable" way than did people who died eating lunch because a suicide bomber detonated him/herself at the table next to them.

[manu1959]

That's because our soldiers and citizens are supposed to be living up to a higher standard. What soldiers and citizens do abroad reflects on the rest of us here at home. It's a given that terrorist animals are evil and our enemies but do our soldiers have to act like them to fight them?

to imply that US soldiers are behaving to the standard of terrorists is disingenuous....

[OCA]

but do our soldiers have to act like them to fight them?

In many instances yes. If terrorists are allowed to have more weapons in their arsenal then we do because of some mythical bullshit higher standard then all is lost.

Am I talking about blowing up innocent civilians? No. Am I talking about using time tested and proven effective methods of extracting information through psychological and intimidation tactics? Yes.

[Hagbard Celine]

In many instances yes. If terrorists are allowed to have more weapons in their arsenal then we do because of some mythical bullshit higher standard then all is lost.

Am I talking about blowing up innocent civilians? No. Am I talking about using time tested and proven effective methods of extracting information through psychological and intimidation tactics? Yes.

What information are they trying to extract in your avatar? :rolleyes:

[manu1959]

What information are they trying to extract in your avatar? :rolleyes:

daniel pearl should have been so lucky.....

[Hagbard Celine]

to imply that US soldiers are behaving to the standard of terrorists is disingenuous....

Thanks captain ingenuous. That'll be all for now.

[Hagbard Celine]

daniel pearl should have been so lucky.....

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying that terrorists are better or gentler than US soldiers. Stop being a putz.

[manu1959]

Thanks captain ingenuous. That'll be all for now.

explain your statment then.....

It's a given that terrorist animals are evil and our enemies but do our soldiers have to act like them to fight them?

[Hagbard Celine]

explain your statment then.....

It's a given that terrorist animals are evil and our enemies but do our soldiers have to act like them to fight them?

Well, do they? It's a simple question and I didn't use any big words so you should be able to understand it. Which part exactly are you having trouble with? Also, I'd like to point out for a second time that it was a question and not a statement as you stated.

[manu1959]

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying that terrorists are better or gentler than US soldiers. Stop being a putz.

what are you saying then ..... you have esentially called US soliders terrorists and that they are no better than terrorists .....

either step up and call a spade a spade or piss off

[manu1959]

Well, do they? It's a simple question and I didn't use any big words so you should be able to understand it. Which part exactly are you having trouble with?

like i said...grow a pair.... and either call the soliders terrorists and back it up with proof or shut the fuck up .....

as far as i can tell we have a dog barking at a nude guy and they cut the heads off reporters on video.....

i think you are a liar....

[Hagbard Celine]

what are you saying then ..... you have esentially called US soliders terrorists and that they are no better than terrorists .....

either step up and call a spade a spade or piss off

No I haven't. Put your testosterone spray in check for a moment and use your brain here. I asked if it's reasonable for soldiers to lower themselves to the level of terrorists by abandoning the righteous virtues that America stands for (i.e. human rights, human dignity, the rules of civilized warfare, etc.) just because the enemy they're fighting is uncivilized, primitive and barbaric. I never "called US soldiers terrorists." :rolleyes:

[Sir Evil]

like i said...grow a pair.... and either call the soliders terrorists and back it up with proof or shut the fuck up .....

as far as i can tell we have a dog barking at a nude guy and they cut the heads off reporters on video.....

i think you are a liar....

I psoted the simple logic behind these posts manu, admitting would be the right step but don't count on it.

[Hagbard Celine]

like i said...grow a pair.... and either call the soliders terrorists and back it up with proof or shut the fuck up .....

as far as i can tell we have a dog barking at a nude guy and they cut the heads off reporters on video.....

i think you are a liar....

What have I lied about? The only thing you're proving is that you're a rabid, alarmist military apologist who hasn't read the thread.

[Hagbard Celine]

I psoted the simple logic behind these posts manu, admitting would be the right step but don't count on it.

You guys are inventing an issue and painting me in a bad light where there isn't an issue. I've asked a simple question here and instead of answering it you've proceeded to beat your chests and assume correctness when you haven't posted sh*t besides insults at me. Now who's going to answer the question?

[Sir Evil]

You guys are inventing an issue and painting me in a bad light where there isn't an issue. I've asked a simple question here and instead of answering it you've proceeded to beat your chests and assume correctness when you haven't posted sh*t besides insults at me. Now who's going to answer the question?

First I have'nt insulted you that I am aware of, second I am not sure what question you have asked as I was just popping of with my two cents. Whats your question now?

[OCA]

What information are they trying to extract in your avatar? :rolleyes:

Since I trust the American military i'm positive it was valuable info they were trying to extract by using the "barbaric lol" method of having a German Shepherd bark at a nude guy.

Feel free to think that maybe they were gonna let that German Shepherd chew on that guy's nads.................of which i'd have no problem with.

[Hagbard Celine]

First I have'nt insulted you that I am aware of, second I am not sure what question you have asked as I was just popping of with my two cents. Whats your question now?

I asked earlier: Do US soldiers have to act like them (terrorists) to fight them? Manu apparently thinks that asking this question is tantamount to "calling US soldiers terrorists." Once again, at the slightest hint of "questioning the military in any way" a conservative board member has piped up, hurled accusations and muddled the whole direction of the thread to a point where it becomes a screaming match between a con and a lib. It's not amusing anymore.
The question was brought up because people were discussing Abu Graib and terrorist beheadings and comparing the two. To me it's like comparing apples to oranges, but still some conservative members are intent on defending the actions of the Abu Graib soldiers. The fact remains that American ideals were abandoned during the mishap at Abu Graib and my question is a simple one.

[OCA]

the rules of civilized warfare

LMFAO!:lol::lol:

What the fuck is civilized warfare? War has basically 3 goals...1. the acquirement of territory which is done through the other two reasons 2. killing as many of the enemy as possible and 3. destroying as much military property and infrastructure as possible.

Everything is fair in how you achieve these 3 goals.

[Hagbard Celine]

Since I trust the American military i'm positive it was valuable info they were trying to extract by using the "barbaric lol" method of having a German Shepherd bark at a nude guy.

Feel free to think that maybe they were gonna let that German Shepherd chew on that guy's nads.................of which i'd have no problem with.

Sure. They were trying to find out if he waxes or if he shaves his balls. Looks like he resisted.

[Hagbard Celine]

LMFAO!:lol::lol:

What the fuck is civilized warfare? War has basically 3 goals...1. the acquirement of territory which is done through the other two reasons 2. killing as many of the enemy as possible and 3. destroying as much military property and infrastructure as possible.

Everything is fair in how you achieve these 3 goals.

I think we'd all agree that things like suicide bombs, car bombs, kidnapping and beheading, mistreatment of detainees, field execution of prisoners and using torture are all examples of uncivilized warfare. Keep digging that hole. I'm content to keep watching you bury yourself.

[JohnDoe]

These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility. It is my obligation to evaluate what happened, to make sure those who have committed wrongdoing are brought to justice, and to make changes as needed to see that it doesn't happen again. I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees. They are human beings. They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't do that. That was wrong. To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was un-American. And it was inconsistent with the values of our nation.

– Donald Rumsfeld



and there is lindsey grahm, who said this after the confidential hearings on the abuse there...


Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." He did not elaborate.

perhaps making a person stand before you naked is not torture.....but torture DID TAKE PLACE there at abu ghraib and nothing we can do, will change this....

[jimnyc]

and there is lindsey grahm, who said this after the confidential hearings on the abuse there...

perhaps making a person stand before you naked is not torture.....but torture DID TAKE PLACE there at abu ghraib and nothing we can do, will change this....

And those who did this have since been punished. Now, when are you going to start condemning the acts of the enemy and start threads demanding they get brought to justice?

Didn't think so.

[Sir Evil]

I asked earlier: Do US soldiers have to act like them (terrorists) to fight them?


And as I said earlier in the thread there is no comparing the two. There has been documented cases of abuse but if you view that as what the terrorists do you really have no clue.



Manu apparently thinks that asking this question is tantamount to "calling US soldiers terrorists." Once again, at the slightest hint of "questioning the military in any way" a conservative board member has piped up, hurled accusations and muddled the whole direction of the thread to a point where it becomes a screaming match between a con and a lib. It's not amusing anymore.

Negative! Myself, and a few have said that such things that were documented were wrong, someone posted something or other about how long the sentence terms were that was given to the few bad apples.



The question was brought up because people were discussing Abu Graib and terrorist beheadings and comparing the two. To me it's like comparing apples to oranges, but still some conservative members are intent on defending the actions of the Abu Graib soldiers. The fact remains that American ideals were abandoned during the mishap at Abu Graib and my question is a simple one.
Wrong again! The title of the thread being "not torture" started in my opinion if the picture in question should considered torture, not about the comparison of terrorists & the guilty of Abu Graib. As I stated in my earlier post is that it's very typical that these things come up on such topics, that being the geneava convention, who the real terrorists are and so on. I don't think I have seen too many defending the actions of the soldiers as opposed to those defending what they soldiers are compared to by some.

[Sir Evil]

perhaps making a person stand before you naked is not torture.....but torture DID TAKE PLACE there at abu ghraib and nothing we can do, will change this....

Thats a fact, and it's also a fact that many turn to this kind of argument ever so slightly steering the topic of course. The soldiers were penalized, maybe some got away with something somewhere. The bottom line is what is depicted in the original point of the thread does not make the soldier a terrorist, nor should there ever be a comaprison. Genena, we are better then that, are all just point bending additives to the topic. GET OVER IT, we are not perfect but we are not on the same level as terrorists.:poke:

[OCA]

Thats a fact, and it's also a fact that many turn to this kind of argument ever so slightly steering the topic of course. The soldiers were penalized, maybe some got away with something somewhere. The bottom line is what is depicted in the original point of the thread does not make the soldier a terrorist, nor should there ever be a comaprison. Genena, we are better then that, are all just point bending additives to the topic. GET OVER IT, we are not perfect but we are not on the same level as terrorists.:poke:

I never saw any documented cases of actual torture. What I did see was torture being defined down so that some sort of punishment could be metted out and people could wring their hands. IOW good soldiers received prison sentences for something they didn't do so higher ups could say "I don't support torture".

[JohnDoe]

And those who did this have since been punished. Now, when are you going to start condemning the acts of the enemy and start threads demanding they get brought to justice?

Didn't think so.I did not and never have, started a thread condemning the soldiers at abu ghraib? so, have fun with your ''faux'' outrage....!!! ;)

jd

[OCA]

I did not and never have, started a thread condemning the soldiers at abu ghraib? so, have fun with your ''faux'' outrage....!!! ;)

jd

Probably because you weren't a member then.

[Sir Evil]

I did not and never have, started a thread condemning the soldiers at abu ghraib? so, have fun with your ''faux'' outrage....!!! ;)

jd

:laugh2:

similar to you "faux" intentions when posting?

[Sir Evil]

I never saw any documented cases of actual torture. What I did see was torture being defined down so that some sort of punishment could be metted out and people could wring their hands. IOW good soldiers received prison sentences for something they didn't do so higher ups could say "I don't support torture.

And where did the pressure come from you suppose?

[OCA]

And where did the pressure come from you suppose?

Well that would be the American left....duh!

[Sir Evil]

Well that would be the American left....duh!

:laugh2:

Give that man a prize!

[jimnyc]

I did not and never have, started a thread condemning the soldiers at abu ghraib? so, have fun with your ''faux'' outrage....!!! ;)

jd

Did I say you did? Why do you have issues with comprehension?

You are very quick to condemn Republicans, GW Bush, Soldiers you feel do wrong and anyone else that doesn't fit into your mold - all except for our enemies anyway. Your only enemy happens to be a different political affiliation. I personally think you're very transparent. You act all innocent like, then throw down your condescending posts towards others, act innocent again, then condemn the Republicans again, act innocent again...

All the meanwhile you ignore the enemy. You fail to condemn the terrorists. You ask me to start a new thread about the accomplishments in Iraq, which I do. I watch you read said thread the other day, and yet no response. Plenty of time to condemn the opposing party, but not time to condemn the enemies actions or acknowledge the good coming from Iraq.

Like I said, transparent.

[JohnDoe]

Did I say you did? Why do you have issues with comprehension?

You are very quick to condemn Republicans, GW Bush, Soldiers you feel do wrong and anyone else that doesn't fit into your mold - all except for our enemies anyway. Your only enemy happens to be a different political affiliation. I personally think you're very transparent. You act all innocent like, then throw down your condescending posts towards others, act innocent again, then condemn the Republicans again, act innocent again...

All the meanwhile you ignore the enemy. You fail to condemn the terrorists. You ask me to start a new thread about the accomplishments in Iraq, which I do. I watch you read said thread the other day, and yet no response. Plenty of time to condemn the opposing party, but not time to condemn the enemies actions or acknowledge the good coming from Iraq.

Like I said, transparent.

Jim, you want a "non-innocent" johndoe? Where here ya go...

I have not even used the word republican in this thread...FAUX outrage from you.

I have not ignored the enemy and their actions.... FAUX outrage from you.

I have condemned the enemy for their barbaric actions .... FAUX outrage from you.

The good coming out of Iraq has not been ignored, just put in to perspective of the whole picture, UNLIKE what you have done....so FAUX outrage from you again....

Take the stick out of your butt hole that is causing you this faux outrage, and save it for someone who cares, cuz right now you are on my shit list of faux people, and I don't give a hoot.

Can I be any clearer?

jd

[Sir Evil]

Jim, you want a "non-innocent" johndoe? Where here ya go...

I have not even used the word republican in this thread...FAUX outrage from you.

I have not ignored the enemy and their actions.... FAUX outrage from you.

I have condemned the enemy for their barbaric actions .... FAUX outrage from you.

The good coming out of Iraq has not been ignored, just put in to perspective of the whole picture, UNLIKE what you have done....so FAUX outrage from you again....

Take the stick out of your butt hole that is causing you this faux outrage, and save it for someone who cares, cuz right now you are on my shit list of faux people, and I don't give a hoot.

Can I be any clearer?

jd

Yes, you can be alot clearer by simply explaining why it was you first who brought the geneva convention into the topic of wether the picture was considered torture or not........ SO FAUX HUMAN BEING YOU ARE!

Was it not your intention to throw a little more at the administration with your way of taking the topic slightly of course? ........

Now tell the truth or we must continue to wonder how those large portions of foot are tasting that you are eating........

[jimnyc]

What a dumb bitch! :laugh2:

Not a single reply to the thread you asked me to create. - FACT

You condemned republicans on this board MANY times, and your comprehension issues lead you to believe I meant solely this thread. - FACT

I see no posts/threads from you condemning the actions of our enemies who commit atrocities on a daily basis. - FACT

If you made one post condemn the actions of terrorists in the past, it must have been lost in the midst of hundreds upon hundreds of posts you've made condemning Republicans, Bush, the current administration or whomever doesn't appeal to your beliefs - FACT

The good put into perspective? No reply at all is perspective? LOL no reply about the good! - FACT

How about you stick that up your fat butthole! :laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

How about you stick that up your fat butthole! :laugh2:

Dude, thats some serious "faux" rage! :poke:

[OCA]

How about you stick that up your fat butthole! :laugh2:

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

What a dumb bitch! :laugh2:

Not a single reply to the thread you asked me to create. - FACT

You condemned republicans on this board MANY times, and your comprehension issues lead you to believe I meant solely this thread. - FACT

I see no posts/threads from you condemning the actions of our enemies who commit atrocities on a daily basis. - FACT

If you made one post condemn the actions of terrorists in the past, it must have been lost in the midst of hundreds upon hundreds of posts you've made condemning Republicans, Bush, the current administration or whomever doesn't appeal to your beliefs - FACT

The good put into perspective? No reply at all is perspective? LOL no reply about the good! - FACT

How about you stick that up your fat butthole! :laugh2:

is all of this about a thread that you started that you want ME to read Jim? or is it about me coming down on dmp? or is it really about this thread? whatever it is, I don't have to pay attention to it if I don't feel like it...and I don't feel like it right now. You do not own me, no one here has to respond to anything, that's not in the rules.

I am not responding to you on your other thread or your PM, because I need to stay away from you right now....too mad at ya to even respond. So, please leave me alone.

jd

[jimnyc]

is all of this about a thread that you started that you want ME to read Jim? or is it about me coming down on dmp? or is it really about this thread? whatever it is, I don't have to pay attention to it if I don't feel like it...and I don't feel like it right now. You do not own me, no one here has to respond to anything, that's not in the rules.

I am not responding to you on your other thread or your PM, because I need to stay away from you right now....too mad at ya to even respond. So, please leave me alone.

jd

I treat all transparent people equally, not my fault you fit the mold! If you don't like it I suggest you stop reading then, cause I'm certainly not going to stop responding to crap when I see it!

[Sir Evil]

is all of this about a thread that you started that you want ME to read Jim? or is it about me coming down on dmp? or is it really about this thread? whatever it is, I don't have to pay attention to it if I don't feel like it...and I don't feel like it right now. You do not own me, no one here has to respond to anything, that's not in the rules.

I am not responding to you on your other thread or your PM, because I need to stay away from you right now....too mad at ya to even respond. So, please leave me alone.

jd

FAUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a horses ass, twist the topic a bit more why dont you. How about opening up that big trap for another helping of foot while you are at it.


Go away, and come back another day glass woman, you got nothing.

[jimnyc]

"Let me cry victim now instead of acknowledging I've been pwned and now everyone sees me for who I really am"

WAAaAAAAaAaAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaa :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

FAUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a horses ass, twist the topic a bit more why dont you. How about opening up that big trap for another helping of foot while you are at it.


Go away, and come back another day glass woman, you got nothing.
your brother does not need your help or for you to come to the rescue, he's done just fine on his own.

[jimnyc]

"WAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAA AAAAA"

"I'm a victim"

"WWWWWWWAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

your brother does not need your help or for you to come to the rescue, he's done just fine on his own.

You have not replied to me on this topic because you know that you have been exposed on your simple minded ways. You can't just admit that it's not an issue of torture but you disliking for Bush & co.

Now, I'm not here to help my brother, he does do very well for himself. Is it just that you can't handle it coming from more then one person? Shall we see if we can get you covered under the geneva convention?

Silly glass woman....:slap:

[Sir Evil]

I am not responding to you on your other thread or your PM, because I need to stay away from you right now....too mad at ya to even respond. So, please leave me alone.

jd

http://i24.tinypic.com/sqpjdw.jpg

[JohnDoe]

IMHO the real issue here is how do you fight those who have no qualms about using lower standards when they attack America ? It appears to me that when our enemies commit acts like beheading, the action is rationalized almost to the point of condoning it. Very little condemnation but a WHOLE lot of focus on how America responds to it. What happens when those with the "lower standards" kill those who are trying to maintain high standards?
have any soldiers been beheaded? I know of some contrators and Daniel pearle, and one other Jewish American man that was there to find work....were beheaded...Americans, none the less! when this happened there was total outrage from both sides of the aisle, especially when the beheading video's showed up on the net.... at least it was this way on the other boards I was on.

What happens when those with the "lower standards" kill those who are trying to maintain high standards? They die with honor, for their country, just as any soldier that is killed in the war?

[Hagbard Celine]

Ahh, just bask in the high standards of the noble art of debate...:rolleyes::laugh:

[JohnDoe]

You have not replied to me on this topic because you know that you have been exposed on your simple minded ways. You can't just admit that it's not an issue of torture but you disliking for Bush & co.

Now, I'm not here to help my brother, he does do very well for himself. Is it just that you can't handle it coming from more then one person? Shall we see if we can get you covered under the geneva convention?

Silly glass woman....:slap:ahhhhh, you got me there Sir evil, What simple minded ways did you expose me on, regarding THIS thread?

I'm all ears for you... but Jim, he can wait till the fat lady sings! :)

So go on, I'm ready for any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism you can throw out at me, if you are willing to discuss it....

jd

[Dilloduck]

have any soldiers been beheaded? I know of some contrators and Daniel pearle, and one other Jewish American man that was there to find work....were beheaded...Americans, none the less! when this happened there was total outrage from both sides of the aisle, especially when the beheading video's showed up on the net.... at least it was this way on the other boards I was on.

What happens when those with the "lower standards" kill those who are trying to maintain high standards? They die with honor, for their country, just as any soldier that is killed in the war?

It was probably stupid of me to add my comment to the torture thread yet I still ask the question--How do we fight an enemy ( in a way that people will accept ) who does not follow any of the ROEs or conventions that America does ? Let's say they acquire sarin gas and even a primitive delivery system that they use effectively against our troops. What happens?

[jimnyc]

I'm all ears for you... but Jim, he can wait till the fat lady sings! :)

I don't think I can hear you all the way in NY, so shoot me a PM when you're ready! :laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

ahhhhh, you got me there Sir evil, What simple minded ways did you expose me on, regarding THIS thread?

Please see the my final quote, now go back and see how many times I directed something to you that you did not reply on.



I'm all ears for you... but Jim, he can wait till the fat lady sings! :)


I think Jim has implied that she has already sung.



So go on, I'm ready for any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism you can throw out at me, if you are willing to discuss it....
jd
I think I have directed the question to you several times... what a dolt!

[Sir Evil]

Ahh, just bask in the high standards of the noble art of debate...:rolleyes::laugh:

We will, join us when you can figure out how to do so yourself. :D

[jimnyc]

Ahh, just bask in the high standards of the noble art of debate...:rolleyes::laugh:

I refer you to post #32 in this debate where I politely refuted a post of JD's. She chose to ignore it since she was wrong and play "widdle victim" instead. I'm like a shark, I smell blood and attack! :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

It was probably stupid of me to add my comment to the torture thread yet I still ask the question--How do we fight an enemy ( in a way that people will accept ) who does not follow any of the ROEs or conventions that America does ? Let's say they acquire sarin gas and even a primitive delivery system that they use effectively against our troops. What happens?yeah, and if you hadn't then I wouldn't have answered your statement in your post, and we all would have been for the better its seems..... sheesh! I now proclaim to blame you Dillo! hahahahaha! My hell on this thread is YOUR fault! :laugh2:

If they acquired Sarin gas and a means to use it, we kill those that are going to use it.... we don't have to use Sarin gas to kill them, do we? to me that is warfare....

I'm not sure if this really is the issue at what happened in a prison that we had responsibility and control over captives, under the Geneva Convention treaty....

If the USA truely believes that the warfare of today is strangled by the Geneva Convention then they should "Make their case for it" and get Congress to nulify the treaty.... UNSIGN ourselves, so to speak, from this constitutionally bound treaty....!!!!!

you can't keep the cake and eat it too is a saying that relates imho....

[Dilloduck]

yeah, and if you hadn't then I wouldn't have answered your statement in your post, and we all would have been for the better its seems..... sheesh! I now proclaim to blame you Dillo! hahahahaha! My hell on this thread is YOUR fault! :laugh2:

If they acquired Sarin gas and a means to use it, we kill those that are going to use it.... we don't have to use Sarin gas to kill them, do we? to me that is warfare....

I'm not sure if this really is the issue at what happened in a prison that we had responsibility and control over captives, under the Geneva Convention treaty....

If the USA truely believes that the warfare of today is strangled by the Geneva Convention then they should "Make their case for it" and get Congress to nulify the treaty.... UNSIGN ourselves, so to speak, from this constitutionally bound treaty....!!!!!

you can't keep the cake and eat it too is a saying that relates imho....

Would you support nullifying the Geneva Conventions as related to the WOT ?

[JohnDoe]

Would you support nullifying the Geneva Conventions as related to the WOT ?

I think that perhaps a case can be made that under certain defined circumstances, the Geneva Convention as it stands, is not sufficient or could hurt us.....I don't know this for certain but....

I would be opened for Congress to review it with the WOT in mind along with the other signatories to it.

[Sir Evil]

you can't keep the cake and eat it too

lol, neither can you!

[Dilloduck]

I think that perhaps a case can be made that under certain defined circumstances, the Geneva Convention as it stands, is not sufficient or could hurt us.....I don't know this for certain but....

I would be opened for Congress to review it with the WOT in mind along with the other signatories to it.

I'll guarantee that the US military is hamstrung by the "law". You say you are open for a Congresional review. I asked if you would support deeming the Conventions null and void in the WOT.
While I'm at it----what happened to those who tortured America POWs in Viet Nam ?

[manu1959]

I'll guarantee that the US military is hamstrung by the "law". You say you are open for a Congresional review. I asked if you would support deeming the Conventions null and void in the WOT.
While I'm at it----what happened to those who tortured America POWs in Viet Nam ?

no need to suspend the GC for the WOT...terrorists and spies are not covered....as for the VC torture dudes....they a selling toys to our kids.....

[Dilloduck]

no need to suspend the GC for the WOT...terrorists and spies are not covered....as for the VC torture dudes....they a selling toys to our kids.....

but----that's not fair ! :slap:

[manu1959]

but----that's not fair ! :slap:

where is it written that things must be fair?

[Dilloduck]

where is it written that things must be fair?

Cmon dude---we are big and they are small----we gotta even this out. :laugh2:

[diuretic]

LMFAO!:lol::lol:

What the fuck is civilized warfare? War has basically 3 goals...1. the acquirement of territory which is done through the other two reasons 2. killing as many of the enemy as possible and 3. destroying as much military property and infrastructure as possible.

Everything is fair in how you achieve these 3 goals.

Have a read of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas on the concept of "just war".

[diuretic]

Any of us can be persuaded to torture and oppress.

http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

http://www.prisonexp.org/

[Dilloduck]

Have a read of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas on the concept of "just war".

What do they say about assymetrical warfare ? Did Bin Laden begin a "just war" ?

[JohnDoe]

I'll guarantee that the US military is hamstrung by the "law". You say you are open for a Congresional review. I asked if you would support deeming the Conventions null and void in the WOT.
While I'm at it----what happened to those who tortured America POWs in Viet Nam ?I don't know the answer to that on those in Viet Nam.

I don't know that they are for certain hamstrung Dillo.....If someone could prove to me that they were....and that easing the GC requirements regarding the WOT was an absolute necessity to save many American lives,

and... not just conjecture ...or people rattling off things like torture actually WORKS, which ALL statistics and analysis of it, shows that IT DOES NOT give credible information....but let's just say for the argument that it did work well....as I am presuming you are taking the stance of...,

I would also want an analysis by intelligence on whether the benefits (again IF ANY) of allowing torture in interrogations of WOT prisoners, would be more of a detriment to us overall as a country in this Global WOT...than it would be if we hadn't eased up the GC for the WOT.

In other words, it is not a simple yes or no for me, it isn't a macho thing or a thing that I could easily pump up and AGREE TO without knowing more of the whole picture. This is why I said earlier that I would be opened for Congress to reevaluate the rules of the GC...because they would have hearings and meetings with the miitary, with the CIA with whoever they needed to find out all of the pros and cons... well, that is IF THEY WOULD EVER do their damn job.

And also... while skimming through this thread I believe someone mentioned that the geneva convention does not apply when it comes to the war on terror....which in Afghanistan where the war on terror is primarily taking place, it does not apply.

In Iraq, it does. And it has been stated that it does by the usa military, it has been said that the GC applies in Iraq by the President and it has been said that it does apply in Iraq by Rumsfeld before a congressional hearing, and it has been said that it does apply in Iraq by our own Congress.....

I guess Iraq is not part of the WOT like Afghanistan is considered.... Iraq was regime change, or Iraqi Freedom, or WMD's or oil security....or whatever?!


jd

[Sir Evil]

and... not just conjecture

Speaking of conjecture I'm assuming that you must be still eating that cake?

[Dilloduck]

I don't know the answer to that on those in Viet Nam.

I don't know that they are for certain hamstrung Dillo.....If someone could prove to me that they were....and that easing the GC requirements regarding the WOT was an absolute necessity to save many American lives,

and... not just conjecture ...or people rattling off things like torture actually WORKS, which ALL statistics and analysis of it, shows that IT DOES NOT give credible information....but let's just say for the argument that it did work well....as I am presuming you are taking the stance of...,

I would also want an analysis by intelligence on whether the benefits (again IF ANY) of allowing torture in interrogations of WOT prisoners, would be more of a detriment to us overall as a country in this Global WOT...than it would be if we hadn't eased up the GC for the WOT.

In other words, it is not a simple yes or no for me, it isn't a macho thing or a thing that I could easily pump up and AGREE TO without knowing more of the whole picture. This is why I said earlier that I would be opened for Congress to reevaluate the rules of the GC...because they would have hearings and meetings with the miitary, with the CIA with whoever they needed to find out all of the pros and cons... well, that is IF THEY WOULD EVER do their damn job.

And also... while skimming through this thread I believe someone mentioned that the geneva convention does not apply when it comes to the war on terror....which in Afghanistan where the war on terror is primarily taking place, it does not apply.

In Iraq, it does. And it has been stated that it does by the usa military, it has been said that the GC applies in Iraq by the President and it has been said that it does apply in Iraq by Rumsfeld before a congressional hearing, and it has been said that it does apply in Iraq by our own Congress.....

I guess Iraq is not part of the WOT like Afghanistan is considered.... Iraq was regime change, or Iraqi Freedom, or WMD's or oil security....or whatever?!


jd

"I don't know" is good enough for me.

[JohnDoe]

Did Bin Laden begin a "just war" ?

No, Bin Laden's 19 men, that brought down the towers and hit the pentegon did not begin a just War. They went after and targeted innocent civilians, that is not part of "Just War Theory"

[Kathianne]

No, Bin Laden's 19 men, that brought down the towers and hit the pentegon did not begin a just War. They went after and targeted innocent civilians, that is not part of "Just War Theory"

But the 'response' of their actions?

[JohnDoe]

"I don't know" is good enough for me.Hahahahaha! Well, damn, coulda let me know that before I pondered on it for who knows how long and thought it all through!!!!!!!

lol gee thanks!

jd

[JohnDoe]

But the 'response' of their actions?

I think the immediate response by us was perfect. We went after the culpret. It was Just imho, Kathianne.

[Kathianne]

I think the immediate response by us was perfect. We went after the culpret. It was Just imho, Kathianne.

That wasn't an answer. The question was, did their actions initiate 'just war' on US part? If not, why not, based on the theory?

[Dilloduck]

Hahahahaha! Well, damn, coulda let me know that before I pondered on it for who knows how long and thought it all through!!!!!!!

lol gee thanks!

jd

Do you think Al Quaeda is prosecuting any of their own for committing crimes?

[JohnDoe]

Do you think Al Quaeda is prosecuting any of their own for committing crimes?

I don't care what they do... they are barbaric, uncivilized as far as I am concerned....

We were told by OUR PRESIDENT that THEY(the terrorists) wanted to change us, change our ways of freedom here in the greatest country in the world(imo :) )....(which comes with responsibility)

And I'll be damned if we are going to turn in to them.

Because if we do, then they really won, and we really lost imo.

clear cut, to me on that...

[Sir Evil]

I don't care what they do... they are barbaric, uncivilized as far as I am concerned....

We were told by OUR PRESIDENT that THEY(the terrorists) wanted to change us, change our ways of freedom here in the greatest country in the world(imo :) )....(which comes with responsibility)

And I'll be damned if we are going to turn in to them.

Because if we do, then they really won, and we really lost imo.

clear cut, to me on that...

Well you pretty much have our soldiers turned into them so almost there.

[Dilloduck]

I don't care what they do...

...

Someone had better be concerned.

[Gaffer]

This country has never gone to war with anyone that followed the rules of the GC. Those that do follow the rules are allies. The WOT is a completely different type of war requiring different rules which,as JD said, should be considered by congress and implemented.

[Dilloduck]

This country has never gone to war with anyone that followed the rules of the GC. Those that do follow the rules are allies. The WOT is a completely different type of war requiring different rules which,as JD said, should be considered by congress and implemented.

:laugh2: That'll happen any day now !

[Gaffer]

:laugh2: That'll happen any day now !

Yeah just as soon as they finish honoring Limbaugh and condemning moveon. :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

That wasn't an answer. The question was, did their actions initiate 'just war' on US part? If not, why not, based on the theory?
I think I don't understand what you are asking Kathianne...still...and I apologize...

let me try again though...

I have said that Bin Laden did not start a Just War with us,

.and I have said the retalliation and attacks on bin laden, in Afghanistan, after his attacks, was a Just War by us...

now ask again what you want to know?

jd

[Sir Evil]

I think I don't understand

I think you don't understand too much about this thread period... the question was pretty straightforward yet you dropped the ball again.:poke:

[JohnDoe]

Well you pretty much have our soldiers turned into them so almost there.And you get that from my posts, how? Not me.

jd

[Sir Evil]

And you get that from my posts, how? Not me.

jd

ok, Kathiannes question:



That wasn't an answer. The question was, did their actions initiate 'just war' on US part? If not, why not, based on the theory?


In other words did the action of the terrorists initiate just war on our part?

[Dilloduck]

And I'll be damned if we are going to turn in to them.



If we are so paranoid that we spend every waking minute to NOT be even a little like them, we may be dead or JUST like them.

[JohnDoe]

If we are so paranoid that we spend every waking minute to NOT be even a little like them, we may be dead or JUST like them.I don't buy in to that for one nano second. "....there is nothing to fear but fear itself..." meaning if we let the "fear" of things happening rule our judgements and decisions, then we are screwed.

There are reasonable ways to deal with new kinds of wars, and the people in the know can come to an agreement on what they are and then we implement them...

but helter skelter or lawlessness...just breaking the rules, is not one of them in my opinion and I believe in the opinion of most people here.

jd

[JohnDoe]

But the 'response' of their actions?
Darn, it was so clear, but I missed it, got it now....Kathi

You are asking if their response back to us after we responded to them, would that be considered just war on their part??


and the answer is, I don't know.

I don't know if just war theory addressed this...from memory, it did not.

Do you know the answer.... does Just War Theory address it? Interesting question, now that I finally understood it!

[Dilloduck]

I don't buy in to that for one nano second. "....there is nothing to fear but fear itself..." meaning if we let the "fear" of things happening rule our judgements and decisions, then we are screwed.

There are reasonable ways to deal with new kinds of wars, and the people in the know can come to an agreement on what they are and then we implement them...

but helter skelter or lawlessness...just breaking the rules, is not one of them in my opinion and I believe in the opinion of most people here.

jd

Your are the one who is afraid of becoming like terrorists. The US has again gone out of its way to be reasonable only to get nailed again. Terrorists don't care about the law nor reason. They kill anyone who gets in their way and again--no one cares. They would rather argue over nudity being torture.

[Sir Evil]

Darn, it was so clear, but I missed it, got it now....Kathi

You are asking if their response back to us after we responded to them, would that be considered just war on their part??


and the answer is, I don't know.

I don't know if just war theory addressed this...from memory, it did not.

Do you know the answer.... does Just War Theory address it? Interesting question, now that I finally understood it!

There really is no hope....

[JohnDoe]

Your are the one who is afraid of becoming like terrorists. The US has again gone out of its way to be reasonable only to get nailed again. Terrorists don't care about the law nor reason. They kill anyone who gets in their way and again--no one cares. They would rather argue over nudity being torture.
if nudity was the extent of abu ghraib's abuses then abu ghraib would have never become the household name that it did!

i posted a quote from senator graham who had access to the classified information and hearings on it and he said that rape and homicide occured there?

[JohnDoe]

There really is no hope....

what? i finally got it and answered it to the best of my ability!

AND i aso found out from kathianne that this would be considered just actions, by just war theory... it was an interesting question, that i finally understood, and got the answer to.... :) couldn't work much better than that imo!!!

jd

[Sir Evil]

what? i finally got it and answered it to the best of my ability!

AND i aso found out from kathianne that this would be considered just actions, by just war theory... it was an interesting question, that i finally understood, and got the answer to.... :) couldn't work much better than that imo!!!

jd

Unless I'm missing something I still don't think you understood her question is all.

[JohnDoe]

Your are the one who is afraid of becoming like terrorists. The US has again gone out of its way to be reasonable only to get nailed again. Terrorists don't care about the law nor reason. They kill anyone who gets in their way and again--no one cares. They would rather argue over nudity being torture.


could you give an example of where an actual scenario has taken place, where the u.s. has been reasonable only to be nailed again??

and what in your mind or in the GC for that matter, prevents us from killing the enemy?

[manu1959]

could you give an example of where an actual scenario has taken place, where the u.s. has been reasonable only to be nailed again??

and what in your mind or in the GC for that matter, prevents us from killing the enemy?

the us is reasonable every day...the get nailed every day for just being there....

[JohnDoe]

the us is reasonable every day...the get nailed every day for just being there....
But what is it Manu that we can't do? What is it that dillo or you want our soldiers to be allowed to do that they are presently not allowed to do... that would stop this killing of our soldiers every day in Iraq?

jane

[manu1959]

But what is it Manu that we can't do? What is it that dillo or you want our soldiers to be allowed to do that they are presently not allowed to do... that would stop this killing of our soldiers every day in Iraq?

jane

soilders will die it is the nature of being a solider....i would like the militarty to be told use whatever means necessary...no second guessing

your turn.....what would you do?

[JohnDoe]

soilders will die it is the nature of being a solider....i would like the militarty to be told use whatever means necessary...no second guessing

your turn.....what would you do? I wouldn't do what you suggest, and I don't believe our Constitution would support something like that...?

And there should be NO SECOND GUESSING: that kills soldiers I can agree, but if they were fully trained and know the rules inside and out, what is it that they would have to second guess?

should they be allowed to go in to a house of completely innocent people and kill the UNARMED men women and children at point blank range?

No, of course not....

military rules of engagement are meant to be followed and created by those in the know of military situations and strategies, aren't they?

[JohnDoe]

I wouldn't call it much of a prosecution. The harshest penalty yet handed out for ANY of the abuses at Abu Ghraib was 5 months in the brig and a BCD.


Bully,

I just did a search on this and found out that the longest sentence for Abu Ghraib was 10 years not 5 months as you had mentioned.



Prosecutions
Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, a reservist from Fredericksburg, Va., who was director of the Iraq prison’s interrogation center, was convicted of disobeying a general’s order not to discuss the abuse investigation. The jury on Wednesday recommended a reprimand.
Former Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, a military police dog handler from Fullerton, Calif., was convicted of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault for allowing his Belgian shepherd to bark within inches of the face of a kneeling detainee. Cardona was sentenced to 90 days of hard labor with no prison time, reduced in rank one grade to specialist and fined $7,200.

Former Spc. Armin Cruz, a military intelligence reservist from Plano, Texas, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and mistreating prisoners. He was sentenced in September 2004 to eight months in prison.

Former Sgt. Javal Davis, an MP reservist from Roselle, N.J., was sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty in February 2005 to assault, dereliction of duty and lying to Army investigators. He admitted stepping on the hands and feet of handcuffed detainees and falling on them with his full weight.

Pfc. Lynndie England, an MP reservist from Fort Ashby, W. Va., was sentenced in September 2005 to three years in prison after a jury convicted her of conspiracy, mistreating detainees and committing an indecent act. Photos showing England holding a naked prisoner on a leash, posing with a pyramid of naked detainees and pointing at the genitals of a prisoner were among the images that fueled outrage in the Muslim world and beyond.

Former Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, an MP reservist from Buckingham, Va., was sentenced to 8� years in prison in October 2004 after pleading guilty to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees and other charges. Frederick said he helped place wires on a detainee’s hands and told him he would be electrocuted if he fell while standing on a box.

Former Cpl. Charles Graner Jr., an MP reservist from Uniontown, Pa., was sentenced in January 2005 to 10 years in prison for assault, battery, conspiracy, maltreatment, indecent acts and dereliction of duty. Prosecutors described Graner as the ringleader of a group of guards who mistreated detainees.

Former Spc. Megan Ambuhl Graner, an MP reservist from Centreville, Va., now married to Charles Graner. She pleaded guilty in November 2004 to failing to prevent or report maltreatment of prisoners. She was discharged from the Army without prison time.

Former Spc. Sabrina Harman, an MP reservist from Lorton, Va., was found guilty in May 2005 of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and dereliction of duty. She was sentenced to six months in prison.

Former Spc. Roman Krol, a military intelligence reservist from Randolph, Mass., admitted pouring water on naked detainees and forcing them to crawl on the floor. Krol was sentenced in February 2005 to 10 months in prison.

Former Spc. Jeremy Sivits, an MP reservist from Hyndman, Pa., pleaded guilty in May 2004 to four counts for taking pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners being humiliated. He was sentenced to one year in prison.

Former Sgt. Michael J. Smith, an MP dog handler from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was sentenced in March 2006 to 179 days in prison for offenses that included maltreatment, conspiracy and dereliction of duty. The jury convicted Smith of conspiring with Cardona, the dog handler, to frighten detainees into soiling themselves.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20493225/

[jimnyc]

Bully,

I just did a search on this and found out that the longest sentence for Abu Ghraib was 10 years not 5 months as you had mentioned.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20493225/

Welcome to yesterday. Those of us that can read properly would have seen that he was not only corrected already, but responded to said correction.

[JohnDoe]

Welcome to yesterday. Those of us that can read properly would have seen that he was not only corrected already, but responded to said correction.


Good morning Jim,

I have said this a thousand times, and I don't think that you and others understand that I am on a very slow dial up system connecting to the internet in a Rural area that has no broadband services available. It takes at least 3 minutes just to get a couple of lines of response through...and then I end up being able to communicate and respond to only 1 person at a time that is debating the issue....

There is no time to search the thread when debating on it....NONE. This is why I am doing this, this morning, so I could see if there was posts that I missed responding to.... maybe I should have begun from reading it backwards but I knew I had missed a great deal in the beginning of the thread....

I not only missed what you said bully and others corrected, but I missed a post or two or yours and others, including the thread you noted in a post to Oca.... post number #32 where you posted 3 links for me which you suggested imo, the Iraqis in prison were not covered by the GC in this war/conflict in Iraq.

I read the three links and I do not see where any of the Iraqi insurgents would not be covered under the GC?

In addition to this our own Military, President, Secretary of Defense and Fiinally the Congress of the USA, have ALL said that the GC WAS valid in all Prisons and with the prisoners in Iraq? So, how can I respond to this post of yours other than to say, I still believe that according to what I have read and heard, the Geneva Convention applys in Iraq, if that is what you were trying to point out to me with this post number 32, if is is not then clarify what you want me to note again, please?

I am still reading through the thread, and need to do this.... please give me some time, I will get to each post and respond to it, if it requires one.....

after that, we can go at it again, and let the spitting at me begin to all of your delights.

jd

[JohnDoe]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what OCA said. One may argue about "civilians" from the Geneva Convention, but that can easily be countered by showing that they were 'armed' or using force against our soldiers.

Directly from the Geneva Convention, Article 4



http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/genevacon/blart-4.htm
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590007?OpenDocumentBut Jim, if they were insurgence, (armed enemy) and had someone directing them, even if they were not in uniform...then they are covered under the convention, wouldn't they be?

[Sir Evil]

But Jim, if they were insurgence, (armed enemy) and had someone directing them, even if they were not in uniform...then they are covered under the convention, wouldn't they be?

Hmm, your a soldier on the battlefield, you see a "insurgence" of insurgents coming your way, gonna whip out the geneva manual for some quick reference points?

Seriously, the whole who should be covered under this rule is really silly especially for us sitting behind the keyboards. I stick to my original post as to why this geneva topic even comes up to begin with so nothing personal dodo, just come out with your real gripe, it's nothing that has'nt been said a million times before.

[Gaffer]

But Jim, if they were insurgence, (armed enemy) and had someone directing them, even if they were not in uniform...then they are covered under the convention, wouldn't they be?

whether someone is directing them or not makes no difference. The GC is only being brought up so that those who want to undermine the war effort can nitpick. The simplest way to handle everything is to kill all the enemy combatants. But that eliminates a good source of intelligence.

The GC was created for civilized countries to fight wars with each other. The problem here is that civilized countries don't fight wars. Wars are fought against despots and fanatics who could care less about the treatment of prisoners.

If they are armed and trying to attack you they are the enemy. Uniforms and allegiance means nothing. The whole purpose of uniforms is for identification of your own forces.

If you really want to apply the GC then all enemy combatants captured will be imprisoned in camps and kept there until the end of hostilities. Which in the case of this war means about 50 years. At the end of hostilities they can be tried for crimes against humanity. Until then they have no legal recourse.

[Sir Evil]

The GC is only being brought up so that those who want to undermine the war effort can nitpick.

I see you too have the uncanny ability to detect BS when you see it. :lol:

[Abbey Marie]

Hmm, your a soldier on the battlefield, you see a "insurgence" of insurgents coming your way, gonna whip out the geneva manual for some quick reference points?

Seriously, the whole who should be covered under this rule is really silly especially for us sitting behind the keyboards. I stick to my original post as to why this geneva topic even comes up to begin with so nothing personal dodo, just come out with your real gripe, it's nothing that has'nt been said a million times before.

Pretty close to what Col. Hunt was saying, which is why it was a joke that Matters tried to use his words against the military and the Admin.

[Sir Evil]

Pretty close to what Col. Hunt was saying, which is why it was a joke that Matters tried to use his words against the military and the Admin.

Truth, and that box of chocolate are so much alike, you just never know what your gonna get next. Maybe another link to prove what she was saying was wrong to begin with but I sure like the ones with the cremes inside.:D


Really though the whole higher standard bullshit when people approach this subject just shows ones real standards in general. I often wonder what they conceive to be the enemy that we are fighting, and why they so desperately need to refer to the convention rules. :dunno:

[JohnDoe]

Hmm, your a soldier on the battlefield, you see a "insurgence" of insurgents coming your way, gonna whip out the geneva manual for some quick reference points?

Seriously, the whole who should be covered under this rule is really silly especially for us sitting behind the keyboards. I stick to my original post as to why this geneva topic even comes up to begin with so nothing personal dodo, just come out with your real gripe, it's nothing that has'nt been said a million times before.


I totally agree with your sentiments regarding soldiers on the battlefield, facing the enemy....they should kick some butt and not be even thinking about some piece of paper.

I have NEVER stated otherwise.

What I was arguing about for argument's sake, was that the Geneva Convention was being used in Iraqi PRISONS per our President and Military verses it not beind used in the battle in Afghanistan OR their Prisons....

And I also stated that the humiliating pictures with the use of dogs imo were not necessarily torture, but that they DID BREAK the humiliation rules of the GC.

Plus I stated that if the GC really needs to be reformed for the war on terror, then by golly, someone needs to make the case and get Congress off their asses to do something about it....IF it was deemed that it really was hurting our progress in the wot more than it would without using it and following it.

Then pretty much after that all hell broke loose and the name calling, belittling, and attacks on to me began.... and yes ... bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... lol ;) on my part!


And just so you know, I started this answer over an hour ago to you, but I was bounced off line 2 times by my service and I was bounced off by 2 different phone calls that came in.... so I am sorry if this has taken me so long to get back to you.


jd

[Sir Evil]

I totally agree with your sentiments regarding soldiers on the battlefield, facing the enemy....they should kick some butt and not be even thinking about some piece of paper.

I have NEVER stated otherwise.


I already know why you brought up the GC, do you?



What I was arguing about for argument's sake, was that the Geneva Convention was being used in Iraqi PRISONS per our President and Military verses it not beind used in the battle in Afghanistan OR their Prisons....

And I also stated that the humiliating pictures with the use of dogs imo were not necessarily torture, but that they DID BREAK the humiliation rules of the GC.


humiliation rules? Please....:poke:



Plus I stated that if the GC really needs to be reformed for the war on terror, then by golly, someone needs to make the case and get Congress off their asses to do something about it....IF it was deemed that it really was hurting our progress in the wot more than it would without using it and following it.

I might believe you in this had I thought you actually thought of a two sided congress.



Then pretty much after that all hell broke loose and the name calling, belittling, and attacks on to me began.... and yes ... bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... lol ;) on my part!


And just so you know, I started this answer over an hour ago to you, but I was bounced off line 2 times by my service and I was bounced off by 2 different phone calls that came in.... so I am sorry if this has taken me so long to get back to you.


jd

I would'nt admit that it took that long..


Seriously now Jane, I know what you are attempting to do here, I saw it right from the begining as have others. I tell you the truth will set you free, step up and tell it like it is on this one, and you will feel better.

Oh, and stop with that dove stuff, it's silly, and untrue. You are a pretty smart person so don't hide behind that charade everday that you have different reasons for your opinions when we can see what the real reasons are. In you honor I have made a brand new custom avatar for you, now you can drop the whole dove routing and be a:

http://i21.tinypic.com/1zpma2v.jpg

Know what that is? "D

[Dilloduck]

I totally agree with your sentiments regarding soldiers on the battlefield, facing the enemy....they should kick some butt and not be even thinking about some piece of paper.

I have NEVER stated otherwise.

What I was arguing about for argument's sake, was that the Geneva Convention was being used in Iraqi PRISONS per our President and Military verses it not beind used in the battle in Afghanistan OR their Prisons....

And I also stated that the humiliating pictures with the use of dogs imo were not necessarily torture, but that they DID BREAK the humiliation rules of the GC.

Plus I stated that if the GC really needs to be reformed for the war on terror, then by golly, someone needs to make the case and get Congress off their asses to do something about it....IF it was deemed that it really was hurting our progress in the wot more than it would without using it and following it.

Then pretty much after that all hell broke loose and the name calling, belittling, and attacks on to me began.... and yes ... bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... lol ;) on my part!


And just so you know, I started this answer over an hour ago to you, but I was bounced off line 2 times by my service and I was bounced off by 2 different phone calls that came in.... so I am sorry if this has taken me so long to get back to you.


jd

With half the country hoping America will wave the white flag ONLY because they feel Bush deserves the embarassment, the chances that any group of people working together to create more succeessful strategies for out troops fighting an assymetrical war are slim and none. Watch closely as people support Hillarys' "plans" for Iraq.

[JohnDoe]

Sir Evil

Seriously now Jane, I know what you are attempting to do here, I saw it right from the begining as have others. I tell you the truth will set you free, step up and tell it like it is on this one, and you will feel better.

Stop Lying.

What I did... was post to Dillo's comment, which CALLED for bringing up the Geneva Convention as an example, imo.

Then another poster made Geneva Convention comments and I answered them. I suppose you think I should have just ignored other posters comments and gone on my little way?


Oh, and stop with that dove stuff, it's silly, and untrue. You are a pretty smart person so don't hide behind that charade everday that you have different reasons for your opinions when we can see what the real reasons are.

What is untrue about it...do you think that one can not be intelligent and be a Dove too? Well obviously, I disagree with you on this.

jd

[Sir Evil]

Sir Evil


Stop Lying.

What I did... was post to Dillo's comment, which CALLED for bringing up the Geneva Convention as an example, imo.

Then another poster made Geneva Convention comments and I answered them. I suppose you think I should have just ignored other posters comments and gone on my little way?

Of course you did, I said right from the begining that you were the first to bring the subject up, if it were not for dillo's post it would of been the next one that mentioned anything that you could of linked to the GC, and you know it.



What is untrue about it...do you think that one can not be intelligent and be a Dove too? Well obviously, I disagree with you on this.

jd

We will more than likely disagree on everything, you posts mostly with hidden motives, I mostly post my own humble opinion so please don't hate me for being right. I don't look for the quickest quote to dispell a point because I don't like what I see from the other side, I suggest my own opinion on it.

You claim to be the dove, a peace advocate but that would require much more of an open mind then you are capable of. If you notice the better majority of what you post in very one way in opinion, and never leaving room for another possibility of opinion. Standing by your beliefs is admirable, standing by them in a shroud of dishonesty is not.

How did you put it, a spade is a spade?

[JohnDoe]

With half the country hoping America will wave the white flag ONLY because they feel Bush deserves the embarassment, the chances that any group of people working together to create more succeessful strategies for out troops fighting an assymetrical war are slim and none. Watch closely as people support Hillarys' "plans" for Iraq.

Well, I think ye protest too much...

Ye as in ye on this message board crying the blues about President Bush to people on the board that did not even bring him in to the conversation, other than saying he was the one that said the GC applied in Iraq, NOT ME....so please don't shoot the messenger of President Bush's message.

President Bush can take care of himself, he is a big boy and does not need this bunch of boy sensitivity group hug kind of protection thing that you all seem to be on the same Band Wagon with imo....

And there is no place on this thread that I have bashed President Bush.

And as far as people just bashing what is going on in Iraq just because they can get some digs in on President Bush.... that is shallow thinking in my opinion...there are some very legitimate concerns with the situation in Iraq now and the way it has been handled the last near 5 years.... to ignore them for the sake of not hurting president Bush's feelings is utterly silly imo.

jd

[JohnDoe]

You claim to be the dove, a peace advocate but that would require much more of an open mind then you are capable of. If you notice the better majority of what you post in very one way in opinion, and never leaving room for another possibility of opinion. Standing by your beliefs is admirable, standing by them in a shroud of dishonesty is not.



I don't see any of my values in a shroud of dishonesty...I am a peace advocate, this does not mean that there are not times where war ends up being the last resort...

I am not blind when it comes to world affairs, and I admit that I do still have alot to learn.

jd

[Sir Evil]

I don't see any of my values in a shroud of dishonesty...I am a peace advocate, this does not mean that there are not times where war ends up being the last resort...

I am not blind when it comes to world affairs, and I admit that I do still have alot to learn.

jd

The dove is never free within painted skies, you have wings dodo, set yourself free....

[Dilloduck]

Well, I think ye protest too much...

Ye as in ye on this message board crying the blues about President Bush to people on the board that did not even bring him in to the conversation, other than saying he was the one that said the GC applied in Iraq, NOT ME....so please don't shoot the messenger of President Bush's message.

President Bush can take care of himself, he is a big boy and does not need this bunch of boy sensitivity group hug kind of protection thing that you all seem to be on the same Band Wagon with imo....

And there is no place on this thread that I have bashed President Bush.

And as far as people just bashing what is going on in Iraq just because they can get some digs in on President Bush.... that is shallow thinking in my opinion...there are some very legitimate concerns with the situation in Iraq now and the way it has been handled the last near 5 years.... to ignore them for the sake of not hurting president Bush's feelings is utterly silly imo.

jd

My point is that there will NOT be any cooperation between parties in fighting the WOT until Bush is gone. If someone promises to take the responsiblity for the WOT when they take the oath of office in 2009, they will get my vote.

[JohnDoe]

The dove is never free within painted skies, you have wings dodo, set yourself free....

It's easier said than done sir evil.... there's alot of other baggage which I carry, involving War.

[Sir Evil]

It's easier said than done sir evil.... there's alot of other baggage which I carry, involving War.

It's is easier than you think, speak it the way you see it, walk it without a care how others see it.

war is inevitable in this world regardless of who it is that brought us there, or why it started, or by who started it.

[JohnDoe]

My point is that there will NOT be any cooperation between parties in fighting the WOT until Bush is gone. If someone promises to take the responsiblity for the WOT when they take the oath of office in 2009, they will get my vote.


Well, the only one on the Democratic side that is hawkish is Hillary, Obama wants to deal with the WOT with more diplomatic needs....

and on the Republican side, I am not that familiar with, but I believe that Guiliani is a big Hawk, and Duncan Hunter is a hawk, don't know about Thompson, and I believe that Romney is not that Hawkish.... oh, ther is McCain too, he is hawkish....

looks like you got a real choice there to make with many candidates that support your view!!!

jd

[Dilloduck]

Well, the only one on the Democratic side that is hawkish is Hillary, Obama wants to deal with the WOT with more diplomatic needs....

and on the Republican side, I am not that familiar with, but I believe that Guiliani is a big Hawk, and Duncan Hunter is a hawk, don't know about Thompson, and I believe that Romney is not that Hawkish.... oh, ther is McCain too, he is hawkish....

looks like you got a real choice there to make with many candidates that support your view!!!

jd

I didn't differentiate between hawk or dove. I said I would vote for the one willing to take the responsibility for it.

[JohnDoe]

I didn't differentiate between hawk or dove. I said I would vote for the one willing to take the responsibility for it.


ahhhh, misunderstood!

[Abbey Marie]

...
And just so you know, I started this answer over an hour ago to you, but I was bounced off line 2 times by my service and I was bounced off by 2 different phone calls that came in.... so I am sorry if this has taken me so long to get back to you.

jd

If this is the case, I think you need a new hobby. :dunno:

[Monkeybone]

in prisons is one thing. ppl should be treated a certain way unless there is an intergation going. but as for fighting, i think if one side breaks the GC, i don't think that it should have to followed then. as long as the treatment is life threatening and such, it should be ok to get the info. Re-Re's just shouldn't take pics of it


BTW: i'd use the dogs to get info...and a soldering iron :dev3:

[OCA]

But what is it Manu that we can't do? What is it that dillo or you want our soldiers to be allowed to do that they are presently not allowed to do... that would stop this killing of our soldiers every day in Iraq?

jane

I would like the handcuffs taken off, let them do what they are trained to do........kill.

[OCA]

But Jim, if they were insurgence, (armed enemy) and had someone directing them, even if they were not in uniform...then they are covered under the convention, wouldn't they be?

No, the GC is very clear in that it only covers uniformed armies.

[OCA]

Truth, and that box of chocolate are so much alike, you just never know what your gonna get next. Maybe another link to prove what she was saying was wrong to begin with but I sure like the ones with the cremes inside.:D


Really though the whole higher standard bullshit when people approach this subject just shows ones real standards in general. I often wonder what they conceive to be the enemy that we are fighting, and why they so desperately need to refer to the convention rules. :dunno:


I wonder when Americans will realize that the Islamofascists are probably right now reading this and sitting back and laughing their asses off at why we argue over such trivial shit and don't get down to fighting?