NationStates Jolt Archive

Jesus, America's already fucked up its relations with the Middle East, France, Italy. And now Germany. I think Bush should just be more efficient about what he's doing, and piss on the European Union flag.

It's bad enough that our media spread the lies about forced prostitution in Germany. Now we're actually imprisoning their citizens for no reason!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/27/terror/main683349.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=HOME_683349

I wonder how long he's going to be in there.

Well, at least we know what happened to him. I wonder how many people, Canadians, Europeans, Arabs, etc. have "disappeared" without a trace already, and never returned?

The military is considering changing the tribunals to strengthen defendants' rights, allow for more independent judges and bar confessions obtained by torture, officials tell the New York Times.
Am I the only one who is afraid of allowing confessions obtained by torture? :eek:

Are they going to get him out of there? Or just continue to torture him?

Am I the only one who is afraid of allowing confessions obtained by torture? :eek:

Nope, not really :eek:

If you want to piss people off, just get George W Bush to act your behalf.

:)

"America Imprisons Innocent German."

"Innocent German" is an oxymoron. :D

At least they imprisoned him based on more than just the word of one person. As my post yesterday proved (from the admissions of the US Army), the people being tortured in prisons in Iraq are often picked up on the word of just one witness. If you lived in Iraq you could go to a US soldier and tell them that guy you hate who is screwing your sister is an insurgent and they will go arrest him for you. Or worse, you can go tell them that guy who is your primary business competitor is an insurgent :)

"America Imprisons Innocent German."

"Innocent German" is an oxymoron. :D


Okay...
I'm German. What exactly am I guilty of?

Okay...
I'm German. What exactly am I guilty of?

Germanness, clearly. All Germans are guilty of it, which means it's acceptable for the US to lock you up. Incidenetly, mind you, any Nazi war criminals who might be of use to the US government get a get-out-of-jail-free card, as long as they can prove they belonged to the Gehlen Org.

Guantanamo sickens me it is grossely against the constituition and has improsened so many innocents.

Guantanamo sickens me it is grossely against the constituition and has improsened so many innocents.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Okay...
I'm German. What exactly am I guilty of?
In "Eutrusca World" citizens of every country (except of course the conservative side of the US) is guilty of every sin, real or imagined, of thier country.

So, while you thought that re-unification and 60 some years had removed you personally from any responsability for WWII-not to Eutrusca. See, then you where too war-mongering, but recently you weren't war mongering enough becuase you didn't help invade Iraq.

Oh, and you personally also have to hold the responsability for any real or imagined "Oil for Food" scandal-but don't you dare hold any conservative american responsable for anything the conservative american leadership does...cause you'd be doing that out of jealousy...

Nevermind that WWII is really his ideal. He should admire 'that guy.' He recognized violence as a sollution to his problem, right? He wasn't afraid to fight for his convictions, to bring his help to all of the other nations that he felt needed it, right? Despite being against public opinion? Just 'did what he felt was right,' right? He really shouldn't be holding it against you-it fits with his convictions...

"America Imprisons Innocent German."

"Innocent German" is an oxymoron. :D

Objection.

In "Eutrusca World" citizens of every country (except of course the conservative side of the US) is guilty of every sin, real or imagined, of thier country.

So, while you thought that re-unification and 60 some years had removed you personally from any responsability for WWII-not to Eutrusca. See, then you where too war-mongering, but recently you weren't war mongering enough becuase you didn't help invade Iraq.

Oh, and you personally also have to hold the responsability for any real or imagined "Oil for Food" scandal-but don't you dare hold any conservative american responsable for anything the conservative american leadership does...cause you'd be doing that out of jealousy...

Nevermind that WWII is really his ideal. He should admire 'that guy.' He recognized violence as a sollution to his problem, right? He wasn't afraid to fight for his convictions, to bring his help to all of the other nations that he felt needed it, right? Despite being against public opinion? Just 'did what he felt was right,' right? He really shouldn't be holding it against you-it fits with his convictions...

Or he coulda been joking - either way.

I could care less what happens to anyone, from any country, who was studying with the Taliban. Crucifixion is too good for the likes of them.

Or he coulda been joking - either way.
eutrusca? joking? don't be ridiculous. he's too old for humor.

"America Imprisons Innocent German."

"Innocent German" is an oxymoron. :D
Eutrusca's "I advice others" thread...is an oxymoron.

only morons could ask his advice:D

(disclaimer: the green smily allows me to make the most stupid statements)

Or he coulda been joking - either way.
Just goin' with what he gives me.

So why was this German dude arrested anyway? Was he aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan or what? I hope we didn't just snatch him off the street in Germany.

So why was this German dude arrested anyway? Was he aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan or what? I hope we didn't just snatch him off the street in Germany.

He was "studying" with the Taliban. Go figure.

Well, we let Johnny Jihad the American Taliban go home, so we might as well let this little miscreant go home.

If I had been President, I would have given orders that any American found in friendly company of the Taliban or al-Qaeda would be tried by summary court martial (in the field, with three officers) and the punishment would be execution by firing squad.

I would then order that the body be hung up in a public place and displayed until the corpse fell apart.

He was "studying" with the Taliban. Go figure.

Well, we let Johnny Jihad the American Taliban go home, so we might as well let this little miscreant go home.

If I had been President, I would have given orders that any American found in friendly company of the Taliban or al-Qaeda would be tried by summary court martial (in the field, with three officers) and the punishment would be execution by firing squad.

I would then order that the body be hung up in a public place and displayed until the corpse fell apart.
that's because you belong in the dark ages. :D (see, this smily shit works!)

For Pete's Sake-based on an unsubstantiated memo....you all hung CBS out to dry for one of those, but it's okay to shoot and hang this guy? That sliding scale is starting to scare the hell out of me...

Guantanamo sickens me it is grossely against the constituition and has improsened so many innocents.


What Constitution?

"America Imprisons Innocent" [people]
hey, big surprise there. :D

What the hell could anyone study with the taliban? How to throw a stone at a woman who's been raped? Anyone who thought the taliban were good people is a true scumbag, but that alone doesn't make him a criminal.

Guantanamo sickens me it is grossely against the constituition and has improsened so many innocents.

so you'd rather that the would-be terrorist next door, who could blow your house up... or more generally, walk into a mall and shoot up a department store, caring not whether they hit man, woman or child... that person should be allowed to walk the streets a free person?

i mean cripes, what is more important:

keeping potential/likely/confirmed terrorists free in the US

or

locking them up to help ensure our SAFETY?

remember, the #1 right granted by the Constitution is the right to LIFE (liberty, pursuit of happiness...).

we "good" Americans can't enjoy any other freedoms if we're dead.

they're trying to protect us. of course we must HOPE that they act on either confirmed intelligence or at least probably-correct intelligence.

IE, they shouldn't just be nabbing people based on appearance.

so you'd rather that the would-be terrorist next door, who could blow your house up, remains free to terrorize?

i mean cripes, what is more important:

keeping potential/likely/confirmed terrorists free in the US

or

locking them up to help ensure our SAFETY?

remember, the #1 right granted by the Constitution is the right to LIFE (liberty, pursuit of happiness...).

we "good" Americans can't enjoy any other freedoms if we're dead.

they're trying to protect us.

did he do anything illegal?

no.

he's innocent.


saying "we're allowed to arrest innocent people for your protection" is going against everything this nation was founded upon.

so you'd rather that the would-be terrorist next door, who could blow your house up, remains free to terrorize?

i mean cripes, what is more important:

keeping potential/likely/confirmed terrorists free in the US

or

locking them up to help ensure our SAFETY?

remember, the #1 right granted by the Constitution is the right to LIFE (liberty, pursuit of happiness...).

we "good" Americans can't enjoy any other freedoms if we're dead.

they're trying to protect us.
The problem with that is if you're going to lock up anyone who can potentially be a terrorist you have to lock up practically everyone. Hell, I know how to extract the explosives from rifle primers and use them to set off ANFO. Any idiot with a pipe and a can of blackpowder can make a pipe bomb. You have to actually prove that the guy is planning to blow someone up to lock him up.

...we "good" Americans...all the good amerikanz voted for ElBushio

Okay...
I'm German. What exactly am I guilty of?
How do we know you're not a subvert neo-Nazi agent? Just kidding. I think Eutrusca is delightfully cynical and should be given a round of gleeful laughter. I wouldn't take him seriously when he uses one of them little green men smilieys. Don't worry about it.

The problem with that is if you're going to lock up anyone who can potentially be a terrorist you have to lock up practically everyone. Hell, I know how to extract the explosives from rifle primers and use them to set off ANFO. Any idiot with a pipe and a can of blackpowder can make a pipe bomb. You have to actually prove that the guy is planning to blow someone up to lock him up.


i completely agree.

hell, i even know how an atomic bomb works. does that make me a terrorist?

did he do anything illegal?

no.

he's innocent.


saying "we're allowed to arrest innocent people for your protection" is going against everything this nation was founded upon.

see, i believe the government's #1 responsibility is to guarantee our safety. THE #1 responsibility... obviously, if he was wrongly imprisoned, he should be released and given a lifetime supply of Big Macs or something to compensate. hehe

What the hell could anyone study with the taliban? How to throw a stone at a woman who's been raped? Anyone who thought the taliban were good people is a true scumbag, but that alone doesn't make him a criminal.


Thats a universal defense when someone like this is caught-"they were studying", they are "students"- it somehow tries to wash away all the menace. And we have to provide audio and video to prove what they were really doing and that their intentions were bad. All this "learning" is bad.

Grrrr!!! Who do the US think they are?! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mp5: :sniper:

Ein Deutscher']Grrrr!!! Who do the US think they are?! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mp5: :sniper:
We rule the world. Calm down.

remember, the #1 right granted by the Constitution is the right to LIFE (liberty, pursuit of happiness...).


Now you're making me laugh. That's not in the Constitution.

Declaration of Independence, maybe. But not in the Constitution.

We rule the world. Calm down.
You have the world by the reigns. Everything seems to be great. You're in a position of power. But, just wait. One day soon your paradise will be shattered when the loud mouth malcontent rabble realise that they too have a voice and that they can longer be surpressed. And then one day you will wake up and another sixties revolution will be underway, and not the placard waving revolution, I'm taking about the dark side that was violent...

You have the world by the reigns. Everything seems to be great. You're in a position of power. But, just wait. One day soon your paradise will be shattered when the loud mouth malcontent rabble realise that they too have a voice and that they can longer be surpressed. And then one day you will wake up and another sixties revolution will be underway, and not the placard waving revolution, I'm taking about the dark side that was violent...

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f37f03d2-9d9d-11d9-a227-00000e2511c8.html

Yeah, and the insurgents have had their asses handed to them. It looks like they want to give up and go home to their mothers.

so you'd rather that the would-be terrorist next door, who could blow your house up... or more generally, walk into a mall and shoot up a department store, caring not whether they hit man, woman or child... that person should be allowed to walk the streets a free person?

i mean cripes, what is more important:

keeping potential/likely/confirmed terrorists free in the US

or

locking them up to help ensure our SAFETY?

remember, the #1 right granted by the Constitution is the right to LIFE (liberty, pursuit of happiness...).

we "good" Americans can't enjoy any other freedoms if we're dead.

they're trying to protect us. of course we must HOPE that they act on either confirmed intelligence or at least probably-correct intelligence.

IE, they shouldn't just be nabbing people based on appearance.
i think benjamin franklin, one of the biggest minds behind the constitution, said it best, thought this is not an exact quote. "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither." basically, what benji ben was trying to say is, you're a douche. :D (the flame proof smiley strikes again!)

see, i believe the government's #1 responsibility is to guarantee our safety.

safety against wrongful imprisonment, perhaps?

safety from a government that has the power to arrest anyone, at any time, for any reason (or no reason at all)?


you know: that's the sort of shit the thrid world dictators pull.

anyone who does not agree with the government must be a terrorist. :rolleyes:

and guess what: the number one right that our government exists to protect is freedom of speech and freedom of thought. read our first amendment for clarification

'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is from the declaration of independance, in a list of complaints about the things the british were denying us of

You have the world by the reigns. Everything seems to be great. You're in a position of power. But, just wait. One day soon your paradise will be shattered when the loud mouth malcontent rabble realise that they too have a voice and that they can longer be surpressed. And then one day you will wake up and another sixties revolution will be underway, and not the placard waving revolution, I'm taking about the dark side that was violent...
Take a joke dude.

The problem with that is if you're going to lock up anyone who can potentially be a terrorist you have to lock up practically everyone. Hell, I know how to extract the explosives from rifle primers and use them to set off ANFO. Any idiot with a pipe and a can of blackpowder can make a pipe bomb. You have to actually prove that the guy is planning to blow someone up to lock him up.Diclaimer for US residents...if you log on the following site...your IP will be sent to the US Homeland E surveillance Bureau.

nevermind...indanarcook.html

Of course If you are located on a Free country..you dont need to worry about it.

all the good amerikanz voted for ElBushio

I prefer the term Il Duhce.

"The military is considering changing the tribunals to strengthen defendants' rights, allow for more independent judges and bar confessions obtained by torture, officials tell the New York Times.

However, Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff oppose changing the tribunal rules unless forced to do so by the courts, the officials said."

...Can I read this part again? The military is considering, mind you they're thinking about it. Pondering it. Wondering if its worth the while. You know, for shits and giggles, just throwing it out there. Seeing how it plays out in polls. Testing the waters. Looking around for something better. Wondering if there is a better way of doing things.

A better way of carrying on military justice than torturing out confessions, using judges beholden to the very people trying to prosecute them, and just maybe allowing the defendants to, I don't know...defend themselves?

And Cheny and his staff says no? No, we'd rather torture people (note that they are actually on record now as saying they are against banning toture on inmates), we'd rather use judges who are not independant from our will, we'd rather not left defendants, you know, defend themselves?

The term defendant I guess is now obsolete huh? Because they can't defend themselves; they are not allowed to defend themselves. The accused are guilty, totured, and that's it. Total suspension of human rights. Boil them in oil, it makes no difference if they are innocent or not; we simply assume they are guilty...or do we even care?

I'm reading it again. I still see the same thing? Impossible. We have a man charged with upholding the constitution telling us that he is AGAINST judicial review? He is AGAINST allowing defendants defending themselves? He is FOR tourturing out confessions?

These are policy positions people. This is what this administration supports. Read it again; same thing. Pro-tourture, anti-justice, against allowing the accused to defend themselves he ACTUALLY says that.

Simply inhuman. I really can't get over it. I'm beside myself. Wars were started for this kind of inhuman behavior, governments have fallen because they've pulled this stuff before. Why on earth could he possibly see this as a good thing? As desireable? As positive? Why would he want to deny the humanity of these people?

Its not like they are guilty; they haven't been found guilty of ANYTHING, they haven't been TRIED for anything. These then, are innocent men! Innocent until proven guilty? Is that no longer the case? Did I miss when we overturned the most fundemental of judicial principles in favor of merciless tourture?

You have the world by the reigns. Everything seems to be great. You're in a position of power. But, just wait. One day soon your paradise will be shattered when the loud mouth malcontent rabble realise that they too have a voice and that they can longer be surpressed. And then one day you will wake up and another sixties revolution will be underway, and not the placard waving revolution, I'm taking about the dark side that was violent...


Just whose voice is the US surpressing ? You have never shut up, nor will you ever. And still tolerate you.

i think benjamin franklin, one of the biggest minds behind the constitution, said it best, thought this is not an exact quote. "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither." basically, what benji ben was trying to say is, you're a douche. :D (the flame proof smiley strikes again!)


new favorite quote

<goes to edit sig>

that's because you belong in the dark ages. :D (see, this smily shit works!)

When I put Whispering Legs on ignore, it seemed an overreaction at the time. The more I see him quoted, the more I realize it was not.

"The military is considering changing the tribunals to strengthen defendants' rights, allow for more independent judges and bar confessions obtained by torture, officials tell the New York Times.

However, Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff oppose changing the tribunal rules unless forced to do so by the courts, the officials said."

...Can I read this part again? The military is considering, mind you they're thinking about it. Pondering it. Wondering if its worth the while. You know, for shits and giggles, just throwing it out there. Seeing how it plays out in polls. Testing the waters. Looking around for something better. Wondering if there is a better way of doing things.

A better way of carrying on military justice than torturing out confessions, using judges beholden to the very people trying to prosecute them, and just maybe allowing the defendants to, I don't know...defend themselves?

And Cheny and his staff says no? No, we'd rather torture people (note that they are actually on record now as saying they are against banning toture on inmates), we'd rather use judges who are not independant from our will, we'd rather not left defendants, you know, defend themselves?

The term defendant I guess is now obsolete huh? Because they can't defend themselves; they are not allowed to defend themselves. The accused are guilty, totured, and that's it. Total suspension of human rights. Boil them in oil, it makes no difference if they are innocent or not; we simply assume they are guilty...or do we even care?

I'm reading it again. I still see the same thing? Impossible. We have a man charged with upholding the constitution telling us that he is AGAINST judicial review? He is AGAINST allowing defendants defending themselves? He is FOR tourturing out confessions?

These are policy positions people. This is what this administration supports. Read it again; same thing. Pro-tourture, anti-justice, against allowing the accused to defend themselves he ACTUALLY says that.

Simply inhuman. I really can't get over it. I'm beside myself. Wars were started for this kind of inhuman behavior, governments have fallen because they've pulled this stuff before. Why on earth could he possibly see this as a good thing? As desireable? As positive? Why would he want to deny the humanity of these people?

Its not like they are guilty; they haven't been found guilty of ANYTHING, they haven't been TRIED for anything. These then, are innocent men! Innocent until proven guilty? Is that no longer the case? Did I miss when we overturned the most fundemental of judicial principles in favor of merciless tourture?


and i'm going to quote this, simply because it bears repeating

When I put Whispering Legs on ignore, it seemed an overreaction at the time. The more I see him quoted, the more I realize it was not.
why ignore him? you just miss all the fun. "so what if half the country, much of canada, almost all of europe, and fuck, most of th world disagrees with me? they're all probably gay, anyway!" :D

When I put Whispering Legs on ignore, it seemed an overreaction at the time. The more I see him quoted, the more I realize it was not.

Then I suppose this news will depress you...

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f37f03d2-9d9d-11d9-a227-00000e2511c8.html

so you'd rather that the would-be terrorist next door, who could blow your house up... or more generally, walk into a mall and shoot up a department store, caring not whether they hit man, woman or child... that person should be allowed to walk the streets a free person?

i mean cripes, what is more important:

keeping potential/likely/confirmed terrorists free in the US

or

locking them up to help ensure our SAFETY?

remember, the #1 right granted by the Constitution is the right to LIFE (liberty, pursuit of happiness...).

we "good" Americans can't enjoy any other freedoms if we're dead.

they're trying to protect us. of course we must HOPE that they act on either confirmed intelligence or at least probably-correct intelligence.

IE, they shouldn't just be nabbing people based on appearance.

@America in general:

Your "safety", or what you perceive, in your paranoia, to be a threat to it, could not be of less concern to me. Stop abusing international law or human rights, or there WILL be a danger to your safety when the rest of the world finally intervenes.

new favorite quote

<goes to edit sig>
word.

@America in general:

Your "safety", or what you perceive, in your paranoia, to be a threat to it, could not be of less concern to me. Stop abusing international law or human rights, or there WILL be a danger to your safety when the rest of the world finally intervenes.

No one in the world is intervening. In fact, NATO nations seem to be helping the US now - if not with troops, then with money.

No one in the world is intervening. In fact, NATO nations seem to be helping the US now - if not with troops, then with money.

NATO is outdated.

all the european countries stopped working with NATO when the EU came to being.

basically, NATO=US

"America Imprisons Innocent German."

"Innocent German" is an oxymoron. :D
Bin Laden says the same thing about Americans, ironically. Hitler said the same about the Jews. It's funny that you share the same ideology.

I could care less what happens to anyone, from any country, who was studying with the Taliban. Crucifixion is too good for the likes of them.
Being a white guy studying the Koran in a Pakistani school automatically means you're "studying with the Taliban"?There weren't any Taliban with him. It was a Taliban-owned school, and it was in a country which actively hunts terrorists. What are you talking about? :confused:

I'm sorry, but not all Muslims are with the Taliban. And you condone the torture?! Whatever heaven Christ is taking you to, have fun hating Muslims and torturing innocents there. Because I'd rather go to hell than live with your kind.

see, i believe the government's #1 responsibility is to guarantee our safety. THE #1 responsibility... obviously, if he was wrongly imprisoned, he should be released and given a lifetime supply of Big Macs or something to compensate. hehe
Yeah, but if an American was wrongly imprisoned in another country, we'd want a hell of a lot more than a lifetime supply of big macs, especially since this guy was (supposedly) tortured. Hypocrites.

I prefer the term Il Duhce.
Or "Shrub."

NATO is outdated.

all the european countries stopped working with NATO when the EU came to being.

basically, NATO=US

Keep saying that. That's why there are German troops in Afghanistan. And why France is now giving money to help with the Iraqi occupation.

The original reasons for NATO have expired. But the organization is far more effective than the UN. Take the Balkans, for example. Who stabilized the region? It certainly wasn't a UN action. It was a NATO action.

Pretty soon, NATO will expand and essentially be the military club for the major Western economic powers. And it will wield far more power than the UN.

1. This is in GITMO, not exactly the place for jaywalkers or litterers, this is the place where we imprison the scum we capture off the battlefields of Afghanistan or find trying to attack this country.

2. People are the ones doing the capturing, and people aren't perfect, neither by design or by action, so people will make mistakes, we just gotta make sure they're few and far between, and learn and improve from the mistakes.

3. The US screwed up regarding trusting that France was our ally and that the UN actually gives a rat's behind about fixing problems around the world, rather than enriching itself and appeasing tyranny.

4.And the Middle East, surely women having rights, being able to vote, women becoming police officers in Iraq, countries like Iraq and Lebanon trying to start self-determination or self-governance, surely would be seen as good steps in history not screw-ups.

Keep saying that. That's why there are German troops in Afghanistan. And why France is now giving money to help with the Iraqi occupation.

The original reasons for NATO have expired. But the organization is far more effective than the UN. Take the Balkans, for example. Who stabilized the region? It certainly wasn't a UN action. It was a NATO action.

Pretty soon, NATO will expand and essentially be the military club for the major Western economic powers. And it will wield far more power than the UN.

True; one wonders what NATO's eventual form will take; its becoming very different from what it was conceived as, yet it seems to have only slight political power despite all it has going for it. On a slightly unrelated note; I still wonder why the US snubbed Nato's outreach on 9/11.

True; one wonders what NATO's eventual form will take; its becoming very different from what it was conceived as, yet it seems to have only slight political power despite all it has going for it. On a slightly unrelated note; I still wonder why the US snubbed Nato's outreach on 9/11.

Probably because we felt a need to do more than we thought they would be willing to do.

I find it telling that NATO intervened in Kosovo when the UN failed to do so.

1. This is in GITMO, not exactly the place for jaywalkers or litterers, this is the place where we imprison the scum we capture off the battlefields of Afghanistan or find trying to attack this country.

2. People are the ones doing the capturing, and people aren't perfect, neither by design or by action, so people will make mistakes, we just gotta make sure they're few and far between, and learn and improve from the mistakes.

3. The US screwed up regarding trusting that France was our ally and that the UN actually gives a rat's behind about fixing problems around the world, rather than enriching itself and appeasing tyranny.

4.And the Middle East, surely women having rights, being able to vote, women becoming police officers in Iraq, countries like Iraq and Lebanon trying to start self-determination or self-governance, surely would be seen as good steps in history not screw-ups.

The usual response to finding that you are condoning a barbarous practice is to stop it. Not to try and limit the number of "mistakes".

But in a country with the Death Penalty, this kind of Twentieth Century rubbish is probably alien.

This is in GITMO, not exactly the place for jaywalkers or litterers, this is the place where we imprison the scum we capture off the battlefields of Afghanistan or find trying to attack this country....this is where the Bushites imprison POWs for Turture...

not exactly the place for the rule of Law...cos the Bushites dont have evidence...they say they are "likely" or "potential" threats...

The usual response to finding that you are condoning a barbarous practice is to stop it. Not to try and limit the number of "mistakes".

But in a country with the Death Penalty, this kind of Twentieth Century rubbish is probably alien.

I don't condone torture as a matter of principle,but if the US has to make people who have information critical to the protection of this country uncomfortable, by all means, for the protection of this country, don't let them sleep, make them stand in one spot for hours, play Barney's theme song in a loop for 24 hours straight, most of these groups whom we capture didn't sign nor should be protected by the Geneva Conventions anyways.

I don't condone torture as a matter of priniple...niple torture?

... don't let them sleep, make them stand in one spot for hours, play Barney's theme song in a loop for 24 hours straight...sexually assault them?...tell them we are going to kill their children?...rape them?...burn them?...electrocute them?...cut them?...use animals on them?

The military is considering changing the tribunals to strengthen defendants' rights, allow for more independent judges and bar confessions obtained by torture, officials tell the New York Times.

However, Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff oppose changing the tribunal rules unless forced to do so by the courts, the officials said.


:headbang: I hate them I hate them I hate them :headbang:

Probably because we felt a need to do more than we thought they would be willing to do.

I find it telling that NATO intervened in Kosovo when the UN failed to do so.

...huh? On 9/11 NATO activated its emergency protocols, allowing full mobilization of NATO member naitons in defense of an attacked member nation. That's basically allowing the US to dictate NATO policy and troop movements from 9/11 onward. The US told them "no", then invaded Afganistan a few months later, and then had to go to NATO to ask for the very help that was offered freely earlier. A political SNAFU? Miscalculation? I don't know.

It made no sense that I could see. It seemed like a direct snub against our allies, followed by a retraction. We lost face, seemed childish and unprofessional, etc. Why?

True, the UN failed to intervene in Kososvo, remember that the UN is mired in the politics of every major power in the world. Such things are to be expected from an institution that was not intially concieved as a rapid reaction military alliance (like...um, NATO). Russia had/has significant influence in that region and in the UN, they led a political offensive against our efforts to have UN backing.

They won. So we skipped the UN and went NATO, bypassing their obstruction. Our NATO commander there, Clark, almost started WW3 by ordering the siezure of a Russian airfield. He was later sacked, and it was obvious to many that the strain of command was proving too much for the man. One reason why I thought he was a horrible canidate.

Anyway; that's not the point. The point is that NATO is as yet not as mired in political wrangling, yet the 9/11 reaction raised serious questions in that area. Was something going on that was not widely reported? I don't know. The UN, for all its noble intentions, cannot effectively function when in conlfict with a great power, US, Russia or otherwise.

sexually assault them?...tell them we are going to kill their children?...rape them?...burn them?...electrocute them?...cut them?...use animals on them?

No, but I'm not the one in charge, apparently, but there are non-lethal ways of interrogation that can be used, and I would be glad to see them be used if information would obtained that would help our country and armed forces, like I wrote before, I don't condone torture, but why isn't anyone complaining about the beheadings that go on, or the kidnappings or suicide bombings, or is it okay when US soldiers and citizens die.

Guantanamo sickens me it is grossely against the constituition and has improsened so many innocents.

Nice spelling!

Yeah, it must be rough having free expression of your religion, better health care than you would have ever gotten back home, and enjoying better food than you have ever received in your entire life. Geez, I don't even have that. Someday they will be able to go back home where they can resume their old lives making bombs and shooting innocent civilians. Hopefully they will have the opportunity to take a few liberals out next time.

Expecting the inevitable backlash...... :sniper:

No, but I'm not the one in charge, apparently, but there are non-lethal ways of interrogation...non-lethal ways of torture??

They are all non-lethal.

"lethal torture" is an Oximoron.

non-lethal ways of torture??

They are all non-lethal.

A lethal way is an Oximoron.

But I didn't say torture, I said interrogation, there is a difference, though I guess to liberals, discomfort to our enemies, no matter in what form, is torture. And besides that, non-lethal methods would cause injury and discomfort, not death.

But I didn't say torture, I said interrogation, there is a difference...
What (in your mind) is the difference?

BTW i do know what is the Differnce...but i wonder if you do. !!!

But I didn't say torture, I said interrogation.
FYI "Lethal Interrogation" is an Oximoron too.

What (in your mind) is the difference?

BTW i do know what is the Differnce...but i wonder if you do. !!!

Sure, I'll give you some examples, torture is like what our soldiers go through when they end up captured by terrorists, no information taken, no plea deal, just death, or worse, and interrogation is causing discomfort without death, trying to break the mind of the subject not their body, because they might have information important to your cause.

non-lethal ways of torture??

They are all non-lethal.

"lethal torture" is an Oximoron.
So, I guess you can't torture someone to death?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

So, I guess you can't torture someone to death?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Nope, totally impossible. You physically cannot do it.

...Of course, back in Metal Gear Solid I kept dying while under toture, 'cause I couldn't hit the button fast enough. Damn French and their electric beds.

;)

Sure, I'll give you some examples, torture is like what our soldiers go through when they end up captured by terrorists, no information taken, no plea deal, just death, or worse, and interrogation is causing discomfort without death, trying to break the mind of the subject not their body, because they might have information important to your cause.


so you say we should stoop to their level?

Nope, totally impossible. You physically cannot do it.

...Of course, back in Metal Gear Solid I kept dying while under toture, 'cause I couldn't hit the button fast enough. Damn French and their electric beds.

;)
"Damn French"? No! That's an oxymoron!!!

so you say we should stoop to their level?

Where did I suggest it? I was asked to give examples of torture as compared to interrogation.

I would never want the US lower ourselves to the level of the terrorist scum we're fighting, we can neither excuse our behavior whether it be in Abu Ghrab or Gitmo, nor should we excuse terrorist behavior because they may not know the rules of war, because they, likely if caught, will be prosecuted for breaking those laws.

Where did I suggest it? I was asked to give examples of torture as compared to interrogation.

I would never want the US lower ourselves to the level of the terrorist scum we're fighting, we can neither excuse our behavior whether it be in Abu Ghrab or Gitmo, nor should we excuse terrorist behavior because they may not know the rules of war, because they, likely if caught, will be prosecuted for breaking those laws.


sorry, i was unsure of what you were responding to.

the tone of the post seemed along the lines of "well, they do it to us, so we've gotta get back at them" or some such

@America in general:

Your "safety", or what you perceive, in your paranoia, to be a threat to it, could not be of less concern to me. Stop abusing international law or human rights, or there WILL be a danger to your safety when the rest of the world finally intervenes.
My recommendation: bring it on and let's get it over with. :)

Sure, I'll give you some examples, torture is like what our soldiers go through when they end up captured by terrorists, no information taken, no plea deal, just death, or worse, and interrogation is causing discomfort without death, trying to break the mind of the subject not their body, because they might have information important to your cause.
you got a good Dictionary?

No?

try this.. www.webster.com

So, I guess you can't torture someone to death?

:confused: :confused: :confused:let me put it this way.

Lets say you work at Gitmo..and you are in charge of Torture...

If you use LETHAL Torture...I would Fire your ass!!!

you got a good Dictionary?

No?

try this.. www.webster.com

Okay....

1.Interrogation-to question formally and systematically
2.Torture-the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

So I was near ballpark of the definititions, but you asked for an a opinion, my opinion to be exact, so therefore that's what you got, I'm not Webster nor am I Einstein and I don't pretend to be either.

If I had been President, I would have given orders that any American found in friendly company of the Taliban or al-Qaeda would be tried by summary court martial (in the field, with three officers) and the punishment would be execution by firing squad.

Would you include american personnel sent in Afghanistan by all american presidents since the russian invasion?

Not only were they in friendly company with the Taliban and al-Quaeda, they also equipped and trained them :-)

At that time, thinking before acting would have been more useful...

I would then order that the body be hung up in a public place and displayed until the corpse fell apart.

We did that with Mussolini. It wasn't a good idea. He deserved it, of course, but the lack of a fair trial and the indignity of exposing him to the mob was for decades a rallying point for the neo-fascists who are now part of the italian government.

At that time, thinking before acting would have been more useful...

Okay....

Torture-the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

So I was near ballpark of the definititions, but you asked for an a opinion, my opinion to be exact, so therefore that's what you got, I'm not Webster nor am I Einstein and I don't pretend to be either.
your opinion can be anything...

here is the main definition.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=torture&x=9&y=17
Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun

1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain.
_______________________________________

When reading this thread (although some of it sounds more like a threat) I just had to answer!

Imagine the following:

You are on vacation in a European country (New Year's Eve 2003), you have a valid German passport (although your name is Khaled el Masri). At the border to Macedonia you are taken out of your bus and being interrogated with a gun to your face. You don't know what the people want because you don't speak their language. A little later, people with masked faces clad in black take you aboard a CIA-owned plane that was rerouted from its original path (Spain - Afghanistan, flight plans and change of destination prove that) to take you aboard in Macedonia, you end up in a prison somewhere in Afghanistan for several months, you are tortured, interrogated (in-terro'-gated) and you don't even know why. A month passes, two months, a quarter of a year, finally it's the end of May and you are again put aboard a plane, this time headed back. After you have landed in Macedonia (again), you are taken into the woods near the Albanian border and set free. The reason for you imprisonment? "Oops, sorry, wrong guy!".
When Masri finally reaches the Albanian border patrol and tells that person his story, his only advice is to better shut up about it because nobody would believe that kind of story anyway - glad he didn't...

The sources for this incident have been checked thoroughly

(Online source of a political magazine on German television, comparable to 60minutes or others on U.S. television - for those of you not fluent in German, sorry :rolleyes:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/25/0,1872,2256793,00.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/19/0,1872,2275603,00.html )


It seems that two Libanese had to face an equal trip to Afghanistan, this time kidnapped in Sweden and who knows how many people have won that kind of lottery, first prize a "trip to Cuba" - stay as long as you like, free clothing (orange is hip this season), free entertainment (24h heavy metal music) and the occasional survey with you as the the centerpiece (okay, just relax, this might hurt a little bit...)

I don't know how you feel about this, but it sure scares the hell out of me. The New York times stated the other day that the American President authorized the CIA to do things like that. Imagine the kind of hell that very person would rise if American citizens would be treated like that.

I can still remember my puzzled amazement when the American President signed a bill approving the use of force should an American soldier be put on trial for comitted warcrimes before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

A soldier commits the atrocity of a warcrime, he is then put into court (like Milosevic, the former Serbian president) to find out if he is indeed guilty but before anything else could happen, a couple of aircraft carriers cruise in the North Sea and attack the NATO partner and ally Netherlands to extract that soldier by force? Oookay - I don't get!

I've spend my fair share of time in the U.S., spoke to a lot of people around the world and I can't help it but admit that the U.S. do a lot of things "just because we can and there's nobody to stop us".

Especially for me as a German I have to say that my perception of the U.S. changed from "the big, strong friend and ally" to "the big bully who thinks might makes right". That's not a way to make friends around the globe...

War is not a means to produce freedom, security, respect and friendship - believe me, I'm German, I know my share of history and resposibility, born long after WWI & WWII, and I still get a lot of bull from across the Atlantic about that. But guess what - right now, I've got the feeling that as long as it serves the cause of freedom (of the U.S. people) and security (of the U.S.) and wellbeing (of the U.S. economy), anything goes. Don't anyone dare call me a nazi ever again, especially not if that somebody is from a country whose government has taken on the ugly mask of a fascist regime in the name of freedom. That is what has been told the German people as a reason for WWII - the fight for freedom (of the German people, screw the rest). That's not how it works!!!

I had always thought that the U.S. were glad that we finally learned the lesson which was bombed into us after 1942 and all of the sudden it's a bad thing to not be a war-hungry country? WTF, mates?

I'd like to finish this post with a couple of quotes from one of the founding fathers of the U.S., another of a former president, and the last from a great German poet and thinker:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

(Quoted from:
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_freedom.html
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_security.html)

Take care, PEACE!
The German Nightmare :D

Sure, I'll give you some examples, torture is like what our soldiers go through when they end up captured by terrorists,

Torture is what people go through when they end up captured by terrorists. I think this sums up perfectly well what goes on in Guantanamo, Abu Grahib, etc. etc.

When reading this thread (although some of it sounds more like a threat) I just had to answer!

Imagine the following:

You are on vacation in a European country (New Year's Eve 2003), you have a valid German passport (although your name is Khaled el Masri). At the border to Macedonia you are taken out of your bus and being interrogated with a gun to your face. You don't know what the people want because you don't speak their language. A little later, people with masked faces clad in black take you aboard a CIA-owned plane that was rerouted from its original path (Spain - Afghanistan, flight plans and change of destination prove that) to take you aboard in Macedonia, you end up in a prison somewhere in Afghanistan for several months, you are tortured, interrogated (in-terro'-gated) and you don't even know why. A month passes, two months, a quarter of a year, finally it's the end of May and you are again put aboard a plane, this time headed back. After you have landed in Macedonia (again), you are taken into the woods near the Albanian border and set free. The reason for you imprisonment? "Oops, sorry, wrong guy!".
When Masri finally reaches the Albanian border patrol and tells that person his story, his only advice is to better shut up about it because nobody would believe that kind of story anyway - glad he didn't...

The sources for this incident have been checked thoroughly

(Online source of a political magazine on German television, comparable to 60minutes or others on U.S. television - for those of you not fluent in German, sorry :rolleyes:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/25/0,1872,2256793,00.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/19/0,1872,2275603,00.html )


It seems that two Libanese had to face an equal trip to Afghanistan, this time kidnapped in Sweden and who knows how many people have won that kind of lottery, first prize a "trip to Cuba" - stay as long as you like, free clothing (orange is hip this season), free entertainment (24h heavy metal music) and the occasional survey with you as the the centerpiece (okay, just relax, this might hurt a little bit...)

I don't know how you feel about this, but it sure scares the hell out of me. The New York times stated the other day that the American President authorized the CIA to do things like that. Imagine the kind of hell that very person would rise if American citizens would be treated like that.

I can still remember my puzzled amazement when the American President signed a bill approving the use of force should an American soldier be put on trial for comitted warcrimes before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

A soldier commits the atrocity of a warcrime, he is then put into court (like Milosevic, the former Serbian president) to find out if he is indeed guilty but before anything else could happen, a couple of aircraft carriers cruise in the North Sea and attack the NATO partner and ally Netherlands to extract that soldier by force? Oookay - I don't get!

I've spend my fair share of time in the U.S., spoke to a lot of people around the world and I can't help it but admit that the U.S. do a lot of things "just because we can and there's nobody to stop us".

Especially for me as a German I have to say that my perception of the U.S. changed from "the big, strong friend and ally" to "the big bully who thinks might makes right". That's not a way to make friends around the globe...

War is not a means to produce freedom, security, respect and friendship - believe me, I'm German, I know my share of history and resposibility, born long after WWI & WWII, and I still get a lot of bull from across the Atlantic about that. But guess what - right now, I've got the feeling that as long as it serves the cause of freedom (of the U.S. people) and security (of the U.S.) and wellbeing (of the U.S. economy), anything goes. Don't anyone dare call me a nazi ever again, especially not if that somebody is from a country whose government has taken on the ugly mask of a fascist regime in the name of freedom. That is what has been told the German people as a reason for WWII - the fight for freedom (of the German people, screw the rest). That's not how it works!!!

I had always thought that the U.S. were glad that we finally learned the lesson which was bombed into us after 1942 and all of the sudden it's a bad thing to not be a war-hungry country? WTF, mates?

I'd like to finish this post with a couple of quotes from one of the founding fathers of the U.S., another of a former president, and the last from a great German poet and thinker:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

(Quoted from:
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_freedom.html
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_security.html)

Take care, PEACE!
The German Nightmare :D
Excellent post! I could not have said it any better *applauds*

.... You don't know what the people want because you don't speak their language. A little later, people with masked faces clad in black take you aboard a CIA-owned plane that was rerouted from its original path (Spain - Afghanistan, flight plans and change of destination prove that) to take you aboard in Macedonia.....they say the CIA Plane belongs to the "World-Champions" Red Sox (I dont know whyTheFuck they call themselves World Champions).

BTW isnt the RedSox Owner Jewish?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture

let me put it this way.

Lets say you work at Gitmo..and you are in charge of Torture...

If you use LETHAL Torture...I would Fire your ass!!!
"Lethal" torture? That's an oxymoron! No, wait. Torture can be lethal, can't it? But only if the people in charge aren't American. After all, torture means just hurting someone continuously (whether with a purpose or not) and doesn't require the intent of keeping them alive. :)

But anyway, all you'd do is fire of them? Wow. You know, if it was me, I'd actually put them in JAIL or something.

According to the Geneva Convention, too, torturing prisoners in an international crime (although neither Iraq or the U.S. followed it, so it's somewhat invalidated). Psychologists agree, too, that torture serves no real purpose. There was a guy in America who had a broomstick shoved up his ass an he admitted to a murder he never did. It would be the same way with the prisoners in Guantanamo. You torture them and eventually, they say, "YES! YES! I'M A TERRORIST! PLEASE, STOP! I'M A TERRORIST!"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture


"Lethal" torture? That's an oxymoron! No, wait. Torture can be lethal, can't it? But only if the people in charge aren't American. After all, torture means just hurting someone continuously (whether with a purpose or not) and doesn't require the intent of keeping them alive. :)

But anyway, all you'd do is fire of them? Wow. You know, if it was me, I'd actually put them in JAIL or something.

According to the Geneva Convention, too, torturing prisoners in an international crime (although neither Iraq or the U.S. followed it, so it's somewhat invalidated). Psychologists agree, too, that torture serves no real purpose. There was a guy in America who had a broomstick shoved up his ass an he admitted to a murder he never did. It would be the same way with the prisoners in Guantanamo. You torture them and eventually, they say, "YES! YES! I'M A TERRORIST! PLEASE, STOP! I'M A TERRORIST!"

There was something called the "witch hunts" a couple hundred years ago. Basically, they tortured a woman (or man, in fact, which happened too) until they admitted to being a witch, after which they were killed. Chosen on a suspicion. Like associating with weird people, being reclusive, holding strange world views. Deemed a danger to society.

How long will it take Dubya to publish a "Malleus Terrorificarum"? (excuse the horrendous Latin-mangling)

There was something called the "witch hunts" a couple hundred years ago. Basically, they tortured a woman (or man, in fact, which happened too) until they admitted to being a witch, after which they were killed. Chosen on a suspicion. Like associating with weird people, being reclusive, holding strange world views. Deemed a danger to society.

How long will it take Dubya to publish a "Malleus Terrorificarum"? (excuse the horrendous Latin-mangling)
http://www.patriotact.com/

There was something called the "witch hunts" a couple hundred years ago. Basically, they tortured a woman (or man, in fact, which happened too) until they admitted to being a witch, after which they were killed. Chosen on a suspicion. Like associating with weird people, being reclusive, holding strange world views. Deemed a danger to society.

How long will it take Dubya to publish a "Malleus Terrorificarum"? (excuse the horrendous Latin-mangling)

What a load of crap. Capture someone bearing arms against the US, people whose avowed purpose is to destroy Western civilization, and you call it a "witch hunt".

Under international law, it would have been legal to shoot them on the spot. Instead, we captured them. You say that's a violation of international law.

Fine. In the future, we'll just shoot them in order to keep things legal.

When reading this thread (although some of it sounds more like a threat) I just had to answer!

Imagine the following:

You are on vacation in a European country (New Year's Eve 2003), you have a valid German passport (although your name is Khaled el Masri). At the border to Macedonia you are taken out of your bus and being interrogated with a gun to your face. You don't know what the people want because you don't speak their language. A little later, people with masked faces clad in black take you aboard a CIA-owned plane that was rerouted from its original path (Spain - Afghanistan, flight plans and change of destination prove that) to take you aboard in Macedonia, you end up in a prison somewhere in Afghanistan for several months, you are tortured, interrogated (in-terro'-gated) and you don't even know why. A month passes, two months, a quarter of a year, finally it's the end of May and you are again put aboard a plane, this time headed back. After you have landed in Macedonia (again), you are taken into the woods near the Albanian border and set free. The reason for you imprisonment? "Oops, sorry, wrong guy!".
When Masri finally reaches the Albanian border patrol and tells that person his story, his only advice is to better shut up about it because nobody would believe that kind of story anyway - glad he didn't...

The sources for this incident have been checked thoroughly

(Online source of a political magazine on German television, comparable to 60minutes or others on U.S. television - for those of you not fluent in German, sorry :rolleyes:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/25/0,1872,2256793,00.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/19/0,1872,2275603,00.html )


It seems that two Libanese had to face an equal trip to Afghanistan, this time kidnapped in Sweden and who knows how many people have won that kind of lottery, first prize a "trip to Cuba" - stay as long as you like, free clothing (orange is hip this season), free entertainment (24h heavy metal music) and the occasional survey with you as the the centerpiece (okay, just relax, this might hurt a little bit...)

I don't know how you feel about this, but it sure scares the hell out of me. The New York times stated the other day that the American President authorized the CIA to do things like that. Imagine the kind of hell that very person would rise if American citizens would be treated like that.

I can still remember my puzzled amazement when the American President signed a bill approving the use of force should an American soldier be put on trial for comitted warcrimes before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

A soldier commits the atrocity of a warcrime, he is then put into court (like Milosevic, the former Serbian president) to find out if he is indeed guilty but before anything else could happen, a couple of aircraft carriers cruise in the North Sea and attack the NATO partner and ally Netherlands to extract that soldier by force? Oookay - I don't get!

I've spend my fair share of time in the U.S., spoke to a lot of people around the world and I can't help it but admit that the U.S. do a lot of things "just because we can and there's nobody to stop us".

Especially for me as a German I have to say that my perception of the U.S. changed from "the big, strong friend and ally" to "the big bully who thinks might makes right". That's not a way to make friends around the globe...

War is not a means to produce freedom, security, respect and friendship - believe me, I'm German, I know my share of history and resposibility, born long after WWI & WWII, and I still get a lot of bull from across the Atlantic about that. But guess what - right now, I've got the feeling that as long as it serves the cause of freedom (of the U.S. people) and security (of the U.S.) and wellbeing (of the U.S. economy), anything goes. Don't anyone dare call me a nazi ever again, especially not if that somebody is from a country whose government has taken on the ugly mask of a fascist regime in the name of freedom. That is what has been told the German people as a reason for WWII - the fight for freedom (of the German people, screw the rest). That's not how it works!!!

I had always thought that the U.S. were glad that we finally learned the lesson which was bombed into us after 1942 and all of the sudden it's a bad thing to not be a war-hungry country? WTF, mates?

I'd like to finish this post with a couple of quotes from one of the founding fathers of the U.S., another of a former president, and the last from a great German poet and thinker:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

(Quoted from:
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_freedom.html
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_security.html)

Take care, PEACE!
The German Nightmare :D
I keep on saying Europe should distance itself from the US. And America's foreign legion, AKA NATO, should be abolished.

What a load of crap. Capture someone bearing arms against the US, people whose avowed purpose is to destroy Western civilization, and you call it a "witch hunt".

Under international law, it would have been legal to shoot them on the spot. Instead, we captured them. You say that's a violation of international law.

Fine. In the future, we'll just shoot them in order to keep things legal.
Not many were captured while bearing arms against the US. Many of them were brought to Americans without any evidence that they were the enemy. As already mentioned in this thread.

Not many were captured while bearing arms against the US. Many of them were brought to Americans without any evidence that they were the enemy. As already mentioned in this thread.

"Many" implies "most". I see no proof of that. I also see no proof that they were not the enemy. Just because they threw down the rifle that the Taliban issued to all non-Afghans who lived with them doesn't mean they're innocent. Just because they say they were "studying" doesn't mean they weren't studying to become a terrorist - they may not have committed a terrorist act yet, but they were certainly a graduate student at the undeniable world leading University of Terror, studying at the feet of the Master of Terror.

What a load of crap. Capture someone bearing arms against the US, people whose avowed purpose is to destroy Western civilization, and you call it a "witch hunt".

Under international law, it would have been legal to shoot them on the spot. Instead, we captured them. You say that's a violation of international law.

Fine. In the future, we'll just shoot them in order to keep things legal.
The German guy, and many people being hele captive, were not bearing weapons or have anything with terrorists. It is a terrorist hunt.

The only reason this German was arrested is because he's a white, German studying the Koran. That made the Pakistani government think he was a terrorist (or they just wanted to get those F-16's), so they handed him over and the U.S. just assumed it was true.

Some people are held captive just on ONE soldier's words. So, it's a really game of, "Ooh, I HEARD so-and-so, was a terrorist!", and then they torture them to get false confessions, just like the Salem Witch trials.

"Many" implies "most". I see no proof of that. I also see no proof that they were not the enemy. Just because they threw down the rifle that the Taliban issued to all non-Afghans who lived with them doesn't mean they're innocent. Just because they say they were "studying" doesn't mean they weren't studying to become a terrorist - they may not have committed a terrorist act yet, but they were certainly a graduate student at the undeniable world leading University of Terror, studying at the feet of the Master of Terror.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now it's guilty until proven innocent?

The only reason this German was arrested is because he's a white, German studying the Koran.

Actually he's of Turkish decent.

When reading this thread (although some of it sounds more like a threat) I just had to answer!

Imagine the following:

You are on vacation in a European country (New Year's Eve 2003), you have a valid German passport (although your name is Khaled el Masri). At the border to Macedonia you are taken out of your bus and being interrogated with a gun to your face. You don't know what the people want because you don't speak their language. A little later, people with masked faces clad in black take you aboard a CIA-owned plane that was rerouted from its original path (Spain - Afghanistan, flight plans and change of destination prove that) to take you aboard in Macedonia, you end up in a prison somewhere in Afghanistan for several months, you are tortured, interrogated (in-terro'-gated) and you don't even know why. A month passes, two months, a quarter of a year, finally it's the end of May and you are again put aboard a plane, this time headed back. After you have landed in Macedonia (again), you are taken into the woods near the Albanian border and set free. The reason for you imprisonment? "Oops, sorry, wrong guy!".
When Masri finally reaches the Albanian border patrol and tells that person his story, his only advice is to better shut up about it because nobody would believe that kind of story anyway - glad he didn't...

The sources for this incident have been checked thoroughly

(Online source of a political magazine on German television, comparable to 60minutes or others on U.S. television - for those of you not fluent in German, sorry :rolleyes:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/25/0,1872,2256793,00.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/19/0,1872,2275603,00.html )


It seems that two Libanese had to face an equal trip to Afghanistan, this time kidnapped in Sweden and who knows how many people have won that kind of lottery, first prize a "trip to Cuba" - stay as long as you like, free clothing (orange is hip this season), free entertainment (24h heavy metal music) and the occasional survey with you as the the centerpiece (okay, just relax, this might hurt a little bit...)

I don't know how you feel about this, but it sure scares the hell out of me. The New York times stated the other day that the American President authorized the CIA to do things like that. Imagine the kind of hell that very person would rise if American citizens would be treated like that.

I can still remember my puzzled amazement when the American President signed a bill approving the use of force should an American soldier be put on trial for comitted warcrimes before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

A soldier commits the atrocity of a warcrime, he is then put into court (like Milosevic, the former Serbian president) to find out if he is indeed guilty but before anything else could happen, a couple of aircraft carriers cruise in the North Sea and attack the NATO partner and ally Netherlands to extract that soldier by force? Oookay - I don't get!

I've spend my fair share of time in the U.S., spoke to a lot of people around the world and I can't help it but admit that the U.S. do a lot of things "just because we can and there's nobody to stop us".

Especially for me as a German I have to say that my perception of the U.S. changed from "the big, strong friend and ally" to "the big bully who thinks might makes right". That's not a way to make friends around the globe...

War is not a means to produce freedom, security, respect and friendship - believe me, I'm German, I know my share of history and resposibility, born long after WWI & WWII, and I still get a lot of bull from across the Atlantic about that. But guess what - right now, I've got the feeling that as long as it serves the cause of freedom (of the U.S. people) and security (of the U.S.) and wellbeing (of the U.S. economy), anything goes. Don't anyone dare call me a nazi ever again, especially not if that somebody is from a country whose government has taken on the ugly mask of a fascist regime in the name of freedom. That is what has been told the German people as a reason for WWII - the fight for freedom (of the German people, screw the rest). That's not how it works!!!

I had always thought that the U.S. were glad that we finally learned the lesson which was bombed into us after 1942 and all of the sudden it's a bad thing to not be a war-hungry country? WTF, mates?

I'd like to finish this post with a couple of quotes from one of the founding fathers of the U.S., another of a former president, and the last from a great German poet and thinker:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

(Quoted from:
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_freedom.html
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_security.html)

Take care, PEACE!
The German Nightmare :D

Danke! Danke, danke, danke.
Excellent post, one that could not be stressed more.

..they say the CIA Plane belongs to the "World-Champions" Red Sox (I dont know whyTheFuck they call themselves World Champions).

BTW isnt the RedSox Owner Jewish?

WTF?!? That is so definitely wrong it should have given you pain even typing it...

"They" should have also told you that you shouldn't just start rumors and you ought to check your references before posting bulldung, or worse, racial, ethnic or religious slurs!

First of all: Who are "they"?!?

If you don't know who "they" are, you might not want to listen to "them" anyway, or should you?

Secondly: The international registration/license number of that very airplane is: N313P

At the time that story took place, the plane was registered with "Premier Executive Transport Service", a company which belongs to or is closely related to the CIA.

(Source:
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/21/0,1872,2257781,00.html )

Third: Not only has your statement been wrong about the Red Sox, but what difference would it make if the owner of the Red Sox was indeed Jewish?

He could be Marsian (ask nicely, and "they" might confirm that also!) and I still wouldn't see any relationship with the story told!!!

If you're trying to hint at some sort of global complot or conspiracy - dude, better luck next time: Gotcha! :sniper:

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now it's guilty until proven innocent?

Wouldn't "guilty" also incline that you have at least had a trial or a juridical procedure or hearing of some sort, maybe even with a lawyer or some sort of advocate on your side or behalf?

I can't help it - this whole anti-terrorism-thing has taken on a dimension where the U.S. government and their henchmen could just take you under arrest without proofs or hints and throw you in a cell indefinitely.

(The reason why this terrifies me so much is because that is exactly what happened in Germany during the 1930s)

I'd like to know how many U.S. citizens have simply disappeared without a trace... Wait - let me rephrase that: Actually, I'd better NOT know 'cause who knows what'll happen to me ;) Guess "I didn't do anything" isn't a valid statement anymore.

Don't get me wrong, the fight against terrorism is important (That's why the German Bundeswehr is in Kabul after all). But you have to do it right (and invading Iraq didn't help): It only gave all the real and would-be terrorists a reason and a place to gather. If I'm not mistaken, a dictator like Saddam Hussein wouldn't have allowed anything to threaten his power in "his" Iraq.
The invasion created a vacuum of security destabilising the country and all those nuts could flock to where they could fight and kill GIs.

Something else which has bothered me a lot about the war on Iraq: If the U.S. did indeed go there to free the Iraqi people - how come that the only administrative building they protected after the capture of Baghdad was the department of natural ressources, namely the oil ministry?

(Good and quick thinking that the military campaign was renamed to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" because "Operation Iraqi Liberation" would have spelled the real reason of the U.S. being there all too clearly: O.I.L.)

The point I'm trying to make is as simple as it is difficult to grasp:

Governments are there for the people, not the people for the government - a well informed public would (and hopefully could) not stand and watch while they are being stripped off their freedom:

We (the government of) the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union (for us), establish Justice (not!), insure domestic Tranquility (by locking up those who speak their mind), provide for the common defence (by randomnly attacking foreign countries in the name of freedom), promote the general Welfare (of us and our big businesses), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves (not you!) and our Posterity (not yours - you just give us your kids and we'll send'em off to war), do ordain and establish this (redrafted) Constitution for the United States of America.

Sound familiar? Thought so! Act appropriatly upon it :D

Take care everyone - Looking 4ward to read from U soon!
Tha Nightmare

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."
Clarence Darrow

P.S.: Have you ever tried to watch Fox News for more than an hour? That can definitely give you a solid case of brain cancer - go watch your washing machine or tumble-drier instead: More fun & not less informative :p

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now it's guilty until proven innocent?

If you were arrested by police, civilian police, that certainly applies.

If you're captured by the military, who are NOT police, in combat, especially if you are in the company of armed combatants, especially non-uniformed armed combatants, you are NOT a suspect in a criminal matter.

You are a detainee in combat. You are entitled to a hearing (which they seem to be getting at Guantanamo) to determine your status - are you (or were you) an armed combatant out of uniform - are you a member of an official military in uniform acting on behalf of an official government - are you a mercenary - are you a spy. These hearings are NOT trials, according to international law. You are not "accused" - you are not a criminal suspect. You are the enemy, in military terms - and you have a right to a hearing to determine your status - not your guilt or innocence.

People need to get that through their heads. If everyone detained in combat was entitled to a criminal trial, the same as we expect in civilian life, then why isn't anyone complaining about how prisoners of war have been treated in EVERY past conflict by EVERY nation? Let's take the Falklands for example. Why didn't the captured Argentinian soldiers in uniform get a trial? Why didn't the initial captured British soldiers in uniform get a trial?

Why? Why didn't anyone complain? Because those are the rules. Captured by soldiers in combat means that you're not under criminal law - you're the enemy, until a hearing is held to decide your actual status.

And what happens if you're living in an area where the fighting takes place, you're not a soldier / spy / military combatant without a uniform but simply a civilian?!?

Lock'em all up in a "rights-free" environment for a couple of years until you decide that it is indeed John Doe who just happened to live where you sent the soldiers?

That sort of "shoot first, ask questions later"-mentality might keep you alive, but if you cannot give anyone the benefit of the doubt, then you should really nuke everyone because somehow you might even get to the right people eventually... (The last half-sentence is to be regarded as sarcasm and not to be taken seriously by anyone near a red button!)

By the way - If you're using the international law as a reference - how come that the U.S. ignore it whenever it's in the way of their New World Order?

You either play by the rules or you disregard them completely: There is no half way in between. And sinking to the same low level of your enemies doesn't make anyone more likeable, or does it?

And what happens if you're living in an area where the fighting takes place, you're not a soldier / spy / military combatant without a uniform but simply a civilian?!?

Lock'em all up in a "rights-free" environment for a couple of years until you decide that it is indeed John Doe who just happened to live where you sent the soldiers?

That sort of "shoot first, ask questions later"-mentality might keep you alive, but if you cannot give anyone the benefit of the doubt, then you should really nuke everyone because somehow you might even get to the right people eventually... (The last half-sentence is to be regarded as sarcasm and not to be taken seriously by anyone near a red button!)

If you're a foreigner "studying" with the Taliban, you're not studying anything except how to kill everyone in the West who doesn't convert to your form of Islam.

BTW, fighting without a uniform or without an official highly visible symbol on your clothing is a war crime under the Hague Convention. You can be shot for it. Being a foreigner in an armed camp (unless you're the prisoner of the enemy) can get you shot for being a mercenary.

Oh, don't worry. We've gotten plenty of the right people. Did you realize that 75 percent of al-Qaeda's top echelons have been either captured or assassinated? Where do you think we got the information from? From a lot of the detainees at Guantanamo. Did you know that foreign "students" like the American "Johnny Taliban" were full of good information? That he and every other foreign Taliban student personally met Osama? That while you'll hear of a few detainees being released after their military tribunals, the majority will NEVER see the light of day again?

Oh, and BTW, more than half of the detainees at Guantanamo don't want to participate in ANY trial of ANY kind and don't want to talk to ANY international representatives from ANY organization. Want to know why? Because they think that everyone who is not on their side is the ENEMY. They made that decision without a trial. Do you think it's fair that they've convicted you in absentia?

If you're a foreigner "studying" with the Taliban, you're not studying anything except how to kill everyone in the West who doesn't convert to your form of Islam.

BTW, fighting without a uniform or without an official highly visible symbol on your clothing is a war crime under the Hague Convention. You can be shot for it. Being a foreigner in an armed camp (unless you're the prisoner of the enemy) can get you shot for being a mercenary.

Oh, don't worry. We've gotten plenty of the right people. Did you realize that 75 percent of al-Qaeda's top echelons have been either captured or assassinated? Where do you think we got the information from? From a lot of the detainees at Guantanamo. Did you know that foreign "students" like the American "Johnny Taliban" were full of good information? That he and every other foreign Taliban student personally met Osama? That while you'll hear of a few detainees being released after their military tribunals, the majority will NEVER see the light of day again?

Oh, and BTW, more than half of the detainees at Guantanamo don't want to participate in ANY trial of ANY kind and don't want to talk to ANY international representatives from ANY organization. Want to know why? Because they think that everyone who is not on their side is the ENEMY. They made that decision without a trial. Do you think it's fair that they've convicted you in absentia?

Your arguments are very weak. Very, very, weak.

You assume that the Taliban only studies for war. Actually if you knew anything at all about the movement you'd know that simply isn't true. Like many extemist movements they set up many "fronts" to place forward their agenda first, schools, charities, etc. Then they pull in recruits with their extremist interpretation of the Koran from those schools.

Your argument that ANYONE studying at a Taliban funded school is a terrorist in training is very wrong. They are all potential recruits, people who might later go on to train in terrorist camps IF they buy into the philosophy. You cannot know this German man's position Whispering Legs; you cannot say AT ALL the man had ill intentions with the information you have. PERIOD. Nothing doing. The nature of the beast is different from that.

Futher, the comment about being a war criminal didn't answer the man's question; he said a Civilian caught in the crossfire not one fighting. A civilian who happened to be in the area, unarmed but picked up in a sweep. There are rules for the proper treatment of civilains in the Hague conventions as well, but you didn't answer. Considering the statistics on the populations of many Iraqi prisons right now, such civilians are indeed being picked up in sweeps.

Lastly, where on earth do you get such precious information on the exact nature of the intel given by specific prisoners at Gitmo? You claim you know WHAT info was given by WHAT prisoners that led to the capture of WHICH induvidual...pretty specific stuff! I'm very interested to hear your source on that. Because it reeks of a bluff.

It smells of grandstanding. That and your claim that more than half of the prisoners have claimed to not want tribunals or access to lawyers. Despite the fact that such information is irrelevant to the injustice that not providing them, I want to know just how you came by that information, and why you think that your info is actually good?

Because as I said before, your arguments are weak, and your evidence smells of bs. Back them up before it rots in the sun.

It smells of grandstanding. That and your claim that more than half of the prisoners have claimed to not want tribunals or access to lawyers. Despite the fact that such information is irrelevant to the injustice that not providing them, I want to know just how you came by that information, and why you think that your info is actually good?

Because as I said before, your arguments are weak, and your evidence smells of bs. Back them up before it rots in the sun.

For prisoners who don't want to cooperate with their own hearings, no matter what:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4557193

75 percent:
http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=40842

It's not irrelevant to the discussion.

The mere fact that someone throws down his rifle does not entitle him to claim that he was unarmed at the time of capture.

I would presume that you are of the opinion that NONE of the detainees at Guantanamo have provided any useful information.

From Amnesty International:
Coercive interrogation methods endorsed by members of the US government amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and violate international law and the USA’s treaty obligations, Amnesty International said today, as it called on the USA to end its practice of holding detainees incommunicado and in secret detention.

Citing current and former officials, today’s New York Times claims that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, an alleged leading member of al-Qa’ida held in an undisclosed location for more than a year, has been subjected to interrogation techniques including "water boarding" in which the prisoner is forcibly pushed under water to the point that he believes he will drown.

"This would be a clear case of torture", Amnesty International said, adding that water submersion is a technique that has been used by countries notorious for their use of torture.

The New York Times states that the techniques used against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed were among a set of secret rules approved by the administration for use against "high value" detainees in the so-called "war on terror".

-------

Apparently, he sang like a bird...

Apparently, he sang like a bird...

Does this quote indicate your support for torture?

Does this quote indicate your support for torture?
Define torture.

If I inject you with a combination of Versed and methamphetamine, you're going to have three problems:
1) I'm going to be your best friend, no matter what you thought of me before.
2) You won't be able to stop talking if prompted by a question.
3) When it wears off, you won't remember having talked to me.

Define torture.

If I inject you with a combination of Versed and methamphetamine, you're going to have three problems:
1) I'm going to be your best friend, no matter what you thought of me before.
2) You won't be able to stop talking if prompted by a question.
3) When it wears off, you won't remember having talked to me.

Yes, for me this would be torture.

According to my English-language dictionary: "The infliction of severe pain as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion".

It is true that when you hang out with those guys, something is definitely awry.

Don't get me wrong - I'm definitely not in favor of any of their goals. On the contrary.

The only problem is that a war machinery like the U.S. armed forces is not exactly known for precision - Hell, if I were 18 years old and got dropped into Baghdad, I know that my pointer finger would definitely be itchy. (That's why I chose conscious denial instead of the draft here and served my community as a paramedic instead of becoming a soldier - I saw more dead people than all my friends who served together :rolleyes: ).

No matter how many people got liberated from the oppression that the regime of the Taliban or the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein - I bet that many of those killed by mistake (I hate the impersonal, proper (?) term collateral damage) would rather live than be dead...

The U.S. government made a big mistake in underestimating the number of troops necessary to really pacify a country like the Iraq. The reason why it worked so well in Germany in 1945 was that despite the lost war, order was restored within a couple of days or miles behind the frontline. I still hear Rumsfeld say that the American GIs would be welcomed with flowers -

Hell, this ain't Germany after 6 years of war - we're dealing with a culture that has had enough oppression from their own governments or rulers for centuries. Just imagine what the American people would do to invaders and occupants... Right, you'd give'm as much hell as you could! (And so would I if it ever came to that here, to be honest).

I'm just scared and I shall openly admit it that with all that sabre-rattling North Korea and China are practising right now (not to mention the dispute about nuclear advancements in Iran) I've got the feeling that the U.S. president and his advisors are not the right people to calm the waves but rather some who enjoy hitting the water until everyone has had a good splashing.

The world isn't black and white, there are many shades of gray in between, and a statement like "You're either with us - or with the terrorists" might fit the view on the big ol' Dubya, but that's not the planet we're living on.

As long as there is social inequality in such a harsh way (and the people know that for sure), there will always be those who try to bring change - even if that means chosing the absolutely wrong means (like terrorism).

I'm just not sure whether it is desirable to fight fire with fire - all which will be left is scorched earth. If I had a solution to the problems of the world I'd be more than happy to share it with you - until then I will voice my objection to things that are not done according to international law, the golden rule, common sense and so on...

Besides, don't you think that the religious behavior of for example the U.S. president could be seen equally misguided towards an extreme - after all, he did talk about a crusade before his advisors made him voice it differently... I think that his deeds speak for themselves though.

If the foreign aid of the U.S. would only be about 5% of its defense budget, administered at the right place, don't you think it would really decrease the influence of those who lead their own people astray?

Shelter, food & clothing are essential before you can start talking business - if you disregard that fact, you're opponent is very likely to seek help elsewhere, especially if people like Al Qaida are willing to provide it for free...

But: Do not judge others lest you be judged -

Good night, good fight, uh... nah... talk! :D
(edited for typos only)

For prisoners who don't want to cooperate with their own hearings, no matter what:

If I snatched you on your way back home from the quick-E-mart with a sixpack and some natchos, you're in your camo-cutoffs sporting a t-shirt with old glory on the front, just because you happened to stumble into my little personal invasion because I like to own the part of town you live in - would you like to talk to me about what plans you had in mind for the night or would you rather go "screw you, ain't talking to you"?

Even if you had planned to get drunk and terrorize the neighborhood with your stereo at full blast, it still doesn't mean I can drug you up and invite you to my own little party of jeopardy where every correct answer is "Am I a terrorist?"

Just because you can doesn't mean you should, just because some means of torture leave the body unscarred doesn't mean it leaves you untouched.

You got any figures on how many innocent people at Guantanamo would be more than happy to get the U.S. back for its hospitality and therefore could even choose to become a terrorist after they have been treated inhumanely?

Imagine your brother or sister is interred there and you know they didn't do shit - what would your reaction be? I'd be pissed like hell, and if nobody will tell you anything about it, but you've got the news coverage for years and years, honestly, how far would you go?

No matter how wrong you yourself know your actions might be, very often it's the outcome for that many are willing to sacrifice themselves and other innocent bystanders...

Yes, for me this would be torture.

According to my English-language dictionary: "The infliction of severe pain as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion".

The problem is that you would have absolutely no memory of it, and it would not be unpleasant at all.

The problem is that you would have absolutely no memory of it, and it would not be unpleasant at all.

Of course it would be unpleasant. To know that one has been treated in this way would be very unpleasant. If I could wipe the memory (in the style of "Men in Black"-film) to someone has had been the victim of Nazi torture, would this make the actions of the Nazis no longer torture because the victim could not remember it happening to them?

Anyway, we could discuss the very nuances and degrees of torture for many pages - but, I ask my original question again, did your earlier statement indicate your support for torture?

The problem is that you would have absolutely no memory of it, and it would not be unpleasant at all.

Oh, come on! Just because nobody knows about it doesn't make it right or legal!

Of course it would be unpleasant. To know that one has been treated in this way would be very unpleasant. If I could wipe the memory (in the style of "Men in Black"-film) to someone has had been the victim of Nazi torture, would this make the actions of the Nazis no longer torture because the victim could not remember it happening to them?

Anyway, we could discuss the very nuances and degrees of torture for many pages - but, I ask my original question again, did your earlier statement indicate your support for torture?

If it's a top level member of a terrorist organization, and it is a method that is known to get results, then yes.

Depends on the method. Depends on the person being interrogated. Depends on the supposed importance of the information.

I'm with Dershowitz on this one.

It's not Nazi style, because we're not doing it for fun or delight. And since you would have no idea (under the drug combination above) that you had even been questioned at any time, you could hardly be said to suffer in any regard - unless we came around a month later and thanked you for telling us everything (and showed it to you on paper). That might break you right there.

If it's a top level member of a terrorist organization, and it is a method that is known to get results, then yes.

Depends on the method. Depends on the person being interrogated. Depends on the supposed importance of the information.

I'm with Dershowitz on this one.

It's not Nazi style, because we're not doing it for fun or delight. And since you would have no idea (under the drug combination above) that you had even been questioned at any time, you could hardly be said to suffer in any regard - unless we came around a month later and thanked you for telling us everything (and showed it to you on paper). That might break you right there.

I fail to understand this. You really believe the way to fight terrorism is to sink to the same level of the terrorist? For me this is hard to comprehend.

It is exactly the same as Nazi style. There is no difference. You are breaking international human rights conventions. Torture is illegal - this includes the methodolgy you regard as being perfectly acceptable. It has no place in a civilised society.

I fail to understand this. You really believe the way to fight terrorism is to sink to the same level of the terrorist? For me this is hard to comprehend.

It is exactly the same as Nazi style. There is no difference. You are breaking international human rights conventions. Torture is illegal - this includes the methodolgy you regard as being perfectly acceptable. It has no place in a civilised society.

Apparently, the UNCAT was signed by the US. The US Laws concerning enforcement of the UNCAT are taken directly from the UNCAT. Apparently, there's a definition of torture.

Under your definition, I can't even imprison the guy, much less ask him questions politely.

Under the UNCAT, that methodology I described would be legal.

Apparently, the UNCAT was signed by the US. The US Laws concerning enforcement of the UNCAT are taken directly from the UNCAT. Apparently, there's a definition of torture.

Under your definition, I can't even imprison the guy, much less ask him questions politely.

Under the UNCAT, that methodology I described would be legal.

Please tell me where I stated you can't imprison? I don't recall, maybe you used this drug you mentioned on me!!

Please tell me where I stated you can't imprison? I don't recall, maybe you used this drug you mentioned on me!!

If you can't cause anyone any pain at all, you certainly can't imprison them. That would cause them mental pain! :rolleyes:

WTF?!? That is so definitely wrong it should have given you pain...My philosophy is that its better to give than to receive...


If you don't know who "they" are, you might not want to listen to "them" anyway, or should you?I listen to whoever I please...
BTW I know who "They" are.


Third: Not only has your statement been wrong about the Red Sox...Arrogance does NOT pay when debating with me

Third: Not only has your statement been wrong about the Red Sox, but what difference would it make if the owner of the Red Sox was indeed Jewish?I never claimed It would make a difference...

He could be Marsian (ask nicely, and "they" might confirm that also!) more arrogance...

If you can't cause anyone any pain at all, you certainly can't imprison them. That would cause them mental pain! :rolleyes:

Don't be silly now... of course you can imprison someone with justification. Crossing the road causes mental pain to some people !

If you can't cause anyone any pain at all, you certainly can't imprison them. That would cause them mental pain! :rolleyes:
Of course you can imprison POWs...untill the war is over...

You just should not force (mental or physical torture) them to give you information.

Ookay, let me spell this out n.i.c.e.l.y:

Arrogance is the act of obtaining rights or advantages, including merely rhetorical advantages, through violence or threats of violence, or through verbal violence. Arrogance is as much an aspect of aggression as it is of pretension, which is unwarranted pride. An arrogant person is not merely unjustifiably confident in their own ability and value, but one actively seeking to cow or belittle other "lesser" people in order to achieve their ends.
(wikipedia.com)

According to that definition, I'm definitely not arrogant - straight forward would be more appropriate, mixed with a healthy but humble portion of selfesteem, confidence and knowledge based on different sources which I crossreferenced.

(Please keep in mind that I am debating in a foreign language here, which I'm constantly trying to master and improve on for the last 17 years... judge for yourself how well that went so far - apparently my arguments sound a little stiff or too high a register? ;) )

I mean, you mentioned the Red Sox and their owners belief without stating why - hence I was inclined to wonder what that had to do with the plane used for the kidnapping.

Stating so called "facts" without a source is simply not helpful as you're claiming to debate - back it up with some sources or evidence and I am open to think about adjusting my own p.o.v. or even move it towards you.

If I have gone too far and hurt your feelings - I apoligize. All I can ask of you is to note sarcasm when it is as obvious and overexaggerated like in the Martian example.

Other than that, all you have stated in that answer is that you want to believe what you want - Okay, great! Me too :D
I'll even grant you your opinion that I'm arrogant - fine with me :p

I'm just amazed that other than that, you have actually managed to not state anything of interest that would further the discussion of this thread :rolleyes:

By the way - only because some lawyers of the U.S. government found a loophole in the contracts the head-honchos have signed doesn't make it less condemnable to use force - physical or mental - to impose their will on somebody in their custody. They might not call it torture, they just give it another name... lawyers...

Example of what even counts as inacceptable here and which I agree on? The chief of police in a German city had to resign because he threatened a suspect "to cause him pain" - didn't even touch him or anything, just words. He intended to safe the life of a child which had been kidnapped by that very suspect, the whereabouts unknown. Unkown to everone except for the suspect - the kid was already dead, killed, strangled. Yet, two wrongs do not make one right, no matter how good the intentions.

After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions (but rest assured, I bet there are some lawyers in hell who can talk you out of eternal condemntaion :cool: )

Example of what even counts as inacceptable here and which I agree on? The chief of police in a German city had to resign because he threatened a suspect "to cause him pain" - didn't even touch him or anything, just words. He intended to safe the life of a child which had been kidnapped by that very suspect, the whereabouts unknown. Unkown to everone except for the suspect - the kid was already dead, killed, strangled. Yet, two wrongs do not make one right, no matter how good the intentions.

After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions (but rest assured, I bet there are some lawyers in hell who can talk you out of eternal condemntaion :cool: )

Ah, yes the wussification of Germany is complete. I recall:

"GSG-9 was formed as a direct result of the inept response of German police to actions of Black September terrorists at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Following the end of World War Two, German authorities had been apprehensive about creating an elite military unit for any purpose. This, in addition to the desire to demonstrate to the world that Germany was no longer the fearsome entity it once was, caused planners to establish security that was as low-profile as possible. As a result, the terrorists were able to penetrate the Olympic compound, murder two athletes and take nine others hostage. The incident took an even worse turn when the on scene commander ordered his men to fire on the terrorists who were preparing to board two helicopters to effect their escape. Poor marksmanship, coupled with a number of snipers who refused to fire, led to the least desirable outcome - an open gun battle. When the smoke cleared on the Furstenfeldbruck military airfield, the nine remaining hostages and terrorists were dead."

And then we have a real man for a change:Ulrich Wegener. the man who executed a captured terrorist in Somalia.

And the GSG-9 also executed the known terrorist Grams - without a trial - in Germany.

But I guess you are all done with that sort of thing now. You want another disaster like they had in the 1972 Olympics - brought on by weak men who won't be able to bring themselves to save anyone.

And the GSG-9 also executed the known terrorist Grams - without a trial - in Germany.
Eeh no they didn't. He shot himself rather then beeing captured.

Eeh no they didn't. He shot himself rather then beeing captured.

Yeah, everyone believed that so much that the friends of Grams firebombed the house of a GSG-9 member.

Ah, jaja, how apout a new arcument, yes?

Now it iz se wussifikation - vhat voult you haf done?

That indeed was a terrible link-up of unfortunate coincidents which resulted in a terrible loss of lives.

But what were the alternatives? Go in with guns blazing, good ol' American style, everything on full auto, maybe we don't hit the hostages?

That the GSG-9* could not safe the lives of the athletes doesn't mean we haven't learned anything from it... even though at a high prize I sorrily have to admit.

When terrorists captured the German civil airplane Landshut 5 years later, the GSG-9 proved to the world what they could do without losing any more hostages during the storming of the cabin.

I don't say that everything here is just fine - all I'm saying is that we have high moral standards and try to do our best to live up to them.
If that doesn't suffice, then so be it - in my opinion that's better than to go too far and restrict the personal freedom as drastically as the patriot act has in the U.S. or those special orders allow abroad on non-U.S. territory.

It is better to not be able to safe everyone than to willingly sacrifice some -


*Correction: please refer to the Von Witzleben remark below

That the GSG-9 could not safe the lives of the athletes doesn't mean we haven't learned anything from it... even though at a high prize I sorrily have to admit.
The GSG-9 didn't exist during the Munich olympics. They were formed as a result of that.

Yeah, everyone believed that so much that the friends of Grams firebombed the house of a GSG-9 member.
I didn't say that they believed that.

The GSG-9 didn't exist during the Munich olympics. They were formed as a result of that.

Whoops! My bad :headbang: - Thank you for correcting my mistake

Example of what even counts as inacceptable here and which I agree on? The chief of police in a German city had to resign because he threatened a suspect "to cause him pain" - didn't even touch him or anything, just words. He intended to safe the life of a child which had been kidnapped by that very suspect, the whereabouts unknown. Unkown to everone except for the suspect - the kid was already dead, killed, strangled. Yet, two wrongs do not make one right, no matter how good the intentions.
What is your source that Wolfgang Daschner had to resign? All I can find is that he was fined 10800 Euro's.

The GSG-9 didn't exist during the Munich olympics. They were formed as a result of that.

Well, the GSG-9 is no longer allowed to leave German territory, largely because the government doesn't trust them not to kill terrorists outright.

Before the GSG-9, you had a set of men unwilling to kill - that's why some of them held their shots at the critical moment in 1972 - and the end result was disaster.

When you need hard men to kill on your behalf, you really need them. But if you've told them to go home, you won't get them back when you need them.

Well, the GSG-9 is no longer allowed to leave German territory, largely because the government doesn't trust them not to kill terrorists outright.
You have a source for that or do I have to take your word for it.

Before the GSG-9, you had a set of men unwilling to kill - that's why some of them held their shots at the critical moment in 1972 - and the end result was disaster.
They were not unwilling. They were just not trained or equipped to handle a situation like that.

You have a source for that or do I have to take your word for it.

They were not unwilling. They were just not trained or equipped to handle a situation like that.

See specialoperations.com - about GSG-9 having its tail trimmed.

Two men were unwilling to shoot in 1972 even though they had clear shots. They talked about it afterwards. You can be a great shot, but still be unwilling to kill.

.... straight forward would be more appropriate, mixed with a healthy but humble portion of selfesteem, confidence and knowledge based on different sources which I crossreferenced...your selfsteem and confidence are as good as your Knowledge...

always double check...or your healthy portion..is going to be more humbled than necesary.

"they" in this case was Skapadroe AKA RedArrow...

He said that someone from the Red Sox allowed the CIA to use his Plane to kidnap differnt people from diffenrent countries.

The RedSox logo was seen on multiple Airports (thats how they figured)...

See specialoperations.com - about GSG-9 having its tail trimmed.
According to the BGS homepage they still can be send in at the request of the state department. But I guess actions like Mogadischu will be handled by the KSK. GSG-9 beeing a police force.

your selfsteem and confidence are as good as your Knowledge...
always double check...or your healthy portion..is going to be more humbled than necesary.
"they" in this case was Skapadroe AKA RedArrow...
He said that someone from the Red Sox allowed the CIA to use his Plane to kidnap differnt people from diffenrent countries.
The RedSox logo was seen on multiple Airports (thats how they figured)...

Well, thank you :)

Now I could read a little more about it:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/21/cia_uses_jet_red_sox_partner_confirms/

It almost looks like this "official kidnapping" happens more often than anyone could really approve of? After all, it seems that the two cases are different threads of the same story (I almost wrote "plot" :D - good thing there is the backspace button...).


What is your source that Wolfgang Daschner had to resign? All I can find is that he was fined 10800 Euro's.

First of all I'd like to apologize to all of you who do not speak German - the sources aren't of any help for you, sorry :(

( http://www2.onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/27/94/29/2794292.html
http://www.hr-online.de/website/rubriken/nachrichten/index.jsp?rubrik=5710&key=standard_document_1445080
http://www.faz.net/s/Rub812F1B901A514F208C613F6B1B336BCC/Doc~E5294FFE794C44B6EBAE4E19344CAC975~ATpl~Ecommon~Sspezial.html )

Well, here's a couple of sources talking about the former police vice-president. After all, the judge found him guilty and sentenced him to the afore mentioned fine, but refrained from issuing a jail term.

Since you cannot be in the police service once you've been previously convicted (and when a cop screws up he's forced to either resign or gets fired), I figured that he resigned because he became unbearable in office, especially while in court... I thought I had heard that on television - but I could be wrong.

If you check the dark gray box in the middle it clearly states that if sentenced to a year or more, officers have to be removed from office.

http://www.fr-aktuell.de/ressorts/nachrichten_und_politik/thema_des_tages/?cnt=591249

But, you're right: It doesn't actually say that he had to resign - he is just out of his former office. I actually don't know whether he is still working as a police officer of some sort - he's not police vice-president any longer though.

I pledge to research my future statements more thoroughly to avoid any mishaps and/or real screw-ups. :D

(Personal note: I gotta get to bed - Due date for 10-page term paper on Friday and not a single word on paper yet - just glad that I wrote a couple of pages here, really enjoy talking to y'all ;) )

How stupid are some of your people? Your military intel. people have IQ's way below avarage.
This pisses me of as a German but shames me as an American Citizen.
Free the man. Oh and by the way you owe him millions for that.

( http://www2.onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/27/94/29/2794292.html
http://www.hr-online.de/website/rubriken/nachrichten/index.jsp?rubrik=5710&key=standard_document_1445080
http://www.faz.net/s/Rub812F1B901A514F208C613F6B1B336BCC/Doc~E5294FFE794C44B6EBAE4E19344CAC975~ATpl~Ecommon~Sspezial.html )

Well, here's a couple of sources talking about the former police vice-president. After all, the judge found him guilty and sentenced him to the afore mentioned fine, but refrained from issuing a jail term.

Since you cannot be in the police service once you've been previously convicted (and when a cop screws up he's forced to either resign or gets fired), I figured that he resigned because he became unbearable in office, especially while in court... I thought I had heard that on television - but I could be wrong.

If you check the dark gray box in the middle it clearly states that if sentenced to a year or more, officers have to be removed from office.

http://www.fr-aktuell.de/ressorts/nachrichten_und_politik/thema_des_tages/?cnt=591249

But, you're right: It doesn't actually say that he had to resign - he is just out of his former office. I actually don't know whether he is still working as a police officer of some sort - he's not police vice-president any longer though.

I don't remember any news show ever saying he resigned cause of Gaefgen. But seeing as he is 61 years now and the von Metzler kidnapping was in 2002, meaning he was 59 then, he might have just taken an early retirement.
I think 59 is/used to be the age at which one can/could take early retirement. From the case against him I remember that no one realy minded him telling Magnus he would learn a whole new definition of pain unless he toled them where he hid Jakob. So I highly doubt that he would have been unbearebal in the office in the publics opinion.

How stupid are some of your people? Your military intel. people have IQ's way below avarage.
This pisses me of as a German but shames me as an American Citizen.
Free the man. Oh and by the way you owe him millions for that.
I thought you were Icelandic. And what man should be freed?

This sickens me to a new degree.

I thought you were Icelandic. And what man should be freed?
I am but my Grandmother on my mother's side was German and that makes me 1/4 German. Icelandic-German, see? I am an American citizen by birth, that is I was born in America and they have some law there that says I am an American, never say I am one though.
Murat Kurnaz<-this guy, free him.

I am an American, never say I am one though.

Understandebal.:D

Understandebal.:D
I think so. :D

I don't remember any news show ever saying he resigned cause of Gaefgen. But seeing as he is 61 years now and the von Metzler kidnapping was in 2002, meaning he was 59 then, he might have just taken an early retirement.
I think 59 is/used to be the age at which one can/could take early retirement. From the case against him I remember that no one realy minded him telling Magnus he would learn a whole new definition of pain unless he toled them where he hid Jakob. So I highly doubt that he would have been unbearebal in the office in the publics opinion.

Could very well be - meeting adjourned :p

"America Imprisons Innocent German."

"Innocent German" is an oxymoron. :D


You said it.

My list of countries I could care less:

1)France

2)Germany

3)Russia

4)Iran

5)Syria


None of these rate high in my standards of good countries. Several reasons for each of them. But the first two are mainly for arrogant europeanism. Third for straight lying cheats. Fourth and Fifth for supporting world terrorism. Have fun....

...After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions (but rest assured, I bet there are some lawyers in hell who can talk you out of eternal condemntaion :cool: )That is all so true.

BTW, I got Johnnie Cochran to sign an "insurance" contract with me...

now he will have to take care of my "file"...when my time comes. :D

My list of countries I could care less:

1)France

2)Germany

None of these rate high in my standards of good countries. Several reasons for each of them. But the first two are mainly for arrogant europeanism. Third for straight lying cheats. Fourth and Fifth for supporting world terrorism. Have fun....


Lying cheats, arorogant Europeanism? WTF?
If that is the case then America U.S.A. should be nr. 1 on your list!

France and Germany are arrogant because they did not support the war AMERICA lied about, right? Don't be stupid.
America is all of the things you calld fore nations in one and that is a fact.

That is all so true.

BTW, I got Johnnie Cochran to sign an "insurance" contract with me...

now he will have to take care of my "file"...when my time comes. :D

I'm afraid you're shit out of luck pal. Johnny Cochran died today :D

My list of countries I could care less:

1)France

2)Germany

3)Russia

4)Iran

5)Syria


None of these rate high in my standards of good countries. Several reasons for each of them. But the first two are mainly for arrogant europeanism. Third for straight lying cheats. Fourth and Fifth for supporting world terrorism. Have fun....
My list is considerably shorter.
1. USA
This one doesn't rate high in my standards of good countries. Several reasons for it. But the first two are mainly for arrogant Americanism. Third for straight lying cheats. Fourth and Fifth for supporting world terrorism. Sixth beeing the main force behind what is now known as terrorism.
Goodnight.

I'm afraid you're shit out of luck pal. Johnny Cochran died today :Dmy contract is already signed...hell can wait.

You on the other hand...you're shit out of luck...unless you are sure to avoid hell :D

All the "We'll Only Torture The Terrorists Because They Are Soulless Bastards Who Would Do The Same To Us Or Worse" arguments and justifications all overlook the same thing that was overlooked during the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the Red Scare: a precise definition of the enemy and a strict litmus test to which all accused are to be held to determine if they qualify as such.

There is neither a standardized definition of a terrorist nor a standardized terrorist test which makes this a lot more palatable. In fact, "terrorist" has become an easy to use copout catchphrase. Call anyone brown-skinned and/or Muslim a "terrorist" and you don't even have to worry about having to come up with solid evidence backing up your statement. In fact, that's what all those above-mentioned historical events held in common with "the war on terror"; ordinary and influential people with their own selfish and petty reasonings decided to cry "Heretic/Witch/Commie/Terrorist" and used the fear-oppressed system to do their dirty work for them.

My list is considerably shorter.
1. USA
This one doesn't rate high in my standards of good countries. Several reasons for it. But the first two are mainly for arrogant Americanism. Third for straight lying cheats. Fourth and Fifth for supporting world terrorism. Sixth beeing the main force behind what is now known as terrorism.
Goodnight.


Wave at the Americans stationed outside your door before you turn in.

Wave at the Americans stationed outside your door before you turn in.

I'll only move as much as a single finger :upyours: 'cause I never invited them here in the first place...

But before this gets ugly, I overexaggerated and mean no harm (really!).

When even Americans welcome visitors to their country with "Welcome to the Empire" - Hello? Wake-up call has been missed twice already...

I'd like to give you all the reasons why your statement is oh so wrong but that has to wait till I've finished my research on it.

so you'd rather that the would-be terrorist next door, who could blow your house up... or more generally, walk into a mall and shoot up a department store, caring not whether they hit man, woman or child... that person should be allowed to walk the streets a free person?

i mean cripes, what is more important:

keeping potential/likely/confirmed terrorists free in the US

or

locking them up to help ensure our SAFETY?

remember, the #1 right granted by the Constitution is the right to LIFE (liberty, pursuit of happiness...).

we "good" Americans can't enjoy any other freedoms if we're dead.

they're trying to protect us. of course we must HOPE that they act on either confirmed intelligence or at least probably-correct intelligence.

IE, they shouldn't just be nabbing people based on appearance.

Food for thought:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Benjamin Franklin

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt

"You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man's freedom. You can be free only if I am free." -- Clarence Darrow

What a load of crap. Capture someone bearing arms against the US, people whose avowed purpose is to destroy Western civilization, and you call it a "witch hunt".

Under international law, it would have been legal to shoot them on the spot. Instead, we captured them. You say that's a violation of international law.

Fine. In the future, we'll just shoot them in order to keep things legal.

You know full well you are wrong about the standards of international law.

Regardless, WL, why do you advocate acting on the same moral level as the terrorists?

Under your view, might makes right and the ends justify the means. Nothing immoral about 9/11, just a battle tactic. The beheadings in Fallujah were A-OK. Talk about your moral relativism.

On the other hand, it is fully possible to abhor the terrorists and their actions. To support the taking of every legal action to combat terrorism. To fight terrorists without abandoning the principles that we stand for. Otherwise, the terrorists have won, no matter the body count.

I'll only move as much as a single finger :upyours: 'cause I never invited them here in the first place...

But before this gets ugly, I overexaggerated and mean no harm (really!).

When even Americans welcome visitors to their country with "Welcome to the Empire" - Hello? Wake-up call has been missed twice already...

I'd like to give you all the reasons why your statement is oh so wrong but that has to wait till I've finished my research on it.

your grandparents did... a little something called NATO and the North Atlantic Treaty, which is still in effect... so if you don't like it, go vote for the German party that wants us out.....besides, the US military is leaving Germany soon anyway, so don't get too upset. We will be in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary... as they invited us.

your great grandparents (or grandparents depending on your age) caused us to be there to begin with... a little something called World War 2

You know full well you are wrong about the standards of international law.

Regardless, WL, why do you advocate acting on the same moral level as the terrorists?

Under your view, might makes right and the ends justify the means. Nothing immoral about 9/11, just a battle tactic. The beheadings in Fallujah were A-OK. Talk about your moral relativism.

On the other hand, it is fully possible to abhor the terrorists and their actions. To support the taking of every legal action to combat terrorism. To fight terrorists without abandoning the principles that we stand for. Otherwise, the terrorists have won, no matter the body count.

under the various International treaties, people who don't wear uniforms and fight as soldiers, or terrorists are not considered Prisoners of War, and can be legally executed when captured. Check the Geneva Convention for details.

Which Germany and the United States both follow

under the various International treaties, people who don't wear uniforms and fight as soldiers, or terrorists are not considered Prisoners of War, and can be legally executed when captured. Check the Geneva Convention for details.

Which Germany and the United States both follow

Nice try. Identify where in the Geneva Convention it says that.

You won't be able to, because it doesn't.

We had a whole argument about this before.

under the various International treaties, people who don't wear uniforms and fight as soldiers, or terrorists are not considered Prisoners of War, and can be legally executed when captured. Check the Geneva Convention for details.

Which Germany and the United States both follow

That would not be a problem, except too many people are labelled terrorists without any real legwork done by the American military to determine which prisoners are truly terrorists and which just happened to get caught on a PMS day. My previous post on this thread elaborates what I mean more.

Nice try. Identify where in the Geneva Convention it says that.

You won't be able to, because it doesn't.

We had a whole argument about this before.

just because you don't buy the arguement doesn't make it untrue or true...

here are some links

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf#search='rules%20for%20the%20treatment%20of%20enemy%20combatants' (this one is on adobe format and you will need to paste it to your browser bar to get it to work)

Nice try. Identify where in the Geneva Convention it says that.

You won't be able to, because it doesn't.

We had a whole argument about this before.

It's the Hague Convention where fighting without wearing a uniform is a war crime. We would have to have a court martial, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long.

That is all so true.

BTW, I got Johnnie Cochran to sign an "insurance" contract with me...

now he will have to take care of my "file"...when my time comes. :D

Good call! What did you pay him with? Your soul :eek: ?

just because you don't buy the arguement doesn't make it untrue or true...

here are some links

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf#search='rules%20for%20the%20treatment%20of%20enemy%20combatants' (this one is on adobe format and you will need to paste it to your browser bar to get it to work)

Next time, read your own source.

You claimed "people who don't wear uniforms and fight as soldiers, or terrorists are not considered Prisoners of War, and can be legally executed when captured."

Your first source says:

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

Nothing in that source says you can execute enemy combatants.

The second source is merely a paper written by a student at the Naval War College.

I'm not going to dig up the sources I provided last time all over again, but here are a handful from the slightly less biased International Red Cross:
International humanitarian law and terrorism: questions and answers (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/0F32B7E3BB38DD26C1256E8A0055F83E)
Doubtful prisoner-of-war status (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList488/2DC8556AEBA60C2541256C68002E8396)
"War" doesn't justify Guantanamo (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList488/42BCD4D3BEB459ABC1256E51003EAF49)

your grandparents did... a little something called NATO and the North Atlantic Treaty, which is still in effect... so if you don't like it, go vote for the German party that wants us out.....besides, the US military is leaving Germany soon anyway, so don't get too upset. We will be in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary... as they invited us.

your great grandparents (or grandparents depending on your age) caused us to be there to begin with... a little something called World War 2

Actually, it's been very fortunate indeed to have been in the region of influence of the United States during the Cold War (at least Western Germany) and it's not very surprising that the U.S. pushes the borders of their sphere of influence further eastward... Another fine example of American Imperialism if you asked me.

But honestly, nobody invited you over here, not in WWI and definitely not in WWII (not saying that I'm not glad the U.S. interfered against Nazi-Germany - but they did that for their very personal own reasons, not to free the German people).

(Irony: How come that whenever Germany is starting a little private war in Europe, you guys wanna join in on the fun?)

For real: Until the 2+4 negotiantions and the following treaty signed on September 12th 1990, Germany has not had a peace treaty or an equivalent with the Allies of WWII, pretty much like North and South Korea today. That treaty for the first time guaranteed German independence and sovereignity because the Allies still held the responsibility for Germany after WWII. It includes making choices in joining alliances with all privilidges and responsibilities.

Besides, the treaty signed by the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, the French Republic, the United Kingdom and North Ireland, the USSR and the USA just before the German Reunification (making it possible in the first place) clearly states that nothing but peace may come out of a reunified Germany, hence, even if we wanted to have joined the illegal, unsanctioned invasion of Iraq, we musn't have.

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

In addition, German Law clearly prohibits anyone to plan, support or even carry out a war of aggression - just one lesson learnt from WWII and now the U.S. is mad about it? That I don't get...

Actually, German law would have forced us to not render any assistance to your troops, airbases and military here, not give you any support whatsoever and stop delivering the German gun barrels and spare parts for your pansy* M1 ABRAMS. (*Gas turbines like in the Bat-Mobile? Nananananananana vroom vroom! :D just kidding)

By the way, Germany has managed something that the U.S. could really admire and try to achieve as well: Living in peace for the last 60 years after more than 2000 years of recorded history of constant warfare... How many wars were "forced upon you" since the U.S. came into being where your country was attacked and how many wars did you pick freely to participate in? Get the picture?

By the way - just to check if any of you did indeed notice:

Notice of Revocation of Independence

To the citizens of the United States of America,

In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed".

2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf.

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005.

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 97.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "shit".

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

Thank you for your cooperation.

(edited for typos only)

*gallop gallop gallop*

the british are coming!!! the british are coming!!!

*gallop gallop gallop*

*gallop gallop gallop*

the british are coming!!! the british are coming!!!

*gallop gallop gallop*

http://www.3dcafe.com/sounds/songs/8charge.wav :eek:

Oh, this one is even more up-to-date: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/declarationrevocation.htm

Actually, it's been very fortunate indeed to have been in the region of influence of the United States during the Cold War (at least Western Germany) and it's not very surprising that the U.S. pushes the borders of their sphere of influence further eastward... Another fine example of American Imperialism if you asked me.

But honestly, nobody invited you over here, not in WWI and definitely not in WWII (not saying that I'm not glad the U.S. interfered against Nazi-Germany - but they did that for their very personal own reasons, not to free the German people). (shortened to reduce thread space)

I saw the English thing when George W Bush won (well technically he won) the election against Gore... it was mildly amusing then. I posted that exact same link (Peace treaty) in another thread. One of the principal barriers to ending the war officially was that the Soviets didn't want it to end, as they would then have no reasonably good reason to stay in East Germany other than to keep an eye of the Germans and the rest of the West. Everything I have ever read pretty much shows that the general feeling by nearly everyone in Europe was thank god the Americans are coming during World War 2... obviously the US had national interests in fighting the war, and Hitler was indeed foolish to declare war on the United States on December 9, 1941... his worst decision according to some historians.

I can't think of any German wars in the 20th Century that were forced on Germany, and initially the various German states chose to attack Revolutionary France, so in other words, for the last 2 centuries, the Germans haven't had any wars forced upon them except for when Napoleon attacked. The US attempted to stay out of both World Wars until it was clear that Germany was too dangerous to be allowed to win. The Mexican War and the Spanish American War are clearly US wars of conquest, but then the Germans clearly engaged in conquest in German Southwest Africa, German East Africa, German Cameroon, so basically both nations were pretty guilty of Imperialism in the 19th and early 20th Century.

The Poles can attest to German (not to mention Russian) aggression, having had the misfortune of being divided up not only in the 20th Century, but also in the 18th Century (counting the Hapsburgs as Germans too).

Since World War 2, the Germans haven't fought a war except for some peacekeeping in the Balkans since the fall of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the US has fought four major wars (Gulf War, Invasion of Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam). Three of those wars were to either liberate or defend a US ally (won in the Gulf War, achieved a tie in Korea, which works out to South Koreas advantage, and suffered defeat for a variety of complex reasons in Vietnam). I will accept that the current Iraq War may very well have been "the wrong war, in the wrong place, with the wrong enemy" ( a great quote from the Korean War period concerning war with China that now applies to this situation).

Hardly imperialism though, as the US is not annexing territory, has never intended to annex territory, and that is pretty much the definitation of building an Empire. Its merely very poorly thought out policy.

The US has engaged in numerous (a lot, I would guess about 25) interventions or combat actions since World War 2. Some where necessary, some weren't. The price of being the largest economic and military power in the world I suppose.

I saw the English thing when George W Bush won (well technically he won) the election against Gore...
And technically, I am a hamster

Strangely, I can't get this image out of my mind:

German: Stop talking about the war, you're upsetting my wife.

Basil Fawlty: Well, you started it!

German: No, we didn't!

Basil Fawlty: Yes you did, you invaded Poland!

Next time, read your own source.

Well, it took me all of about 1 minute to find just those 2 sources, another poster subsequently mention the Hague Convention of War Crimes.

the customs of war, to use only the last 200 years, have always been that an enemy not in uniform is subject to execution with or without trial. Nothing new there at all actually. Up until the mid 19th Century, pirates and slave traders were executed after summary trials generally on the High Seas by whomever captured them.

In other words, the overwhelming body of tradition and custom, which is what US and English Law is based on (Law by Precident) makes my point. Whether 21st Century Western Europe believes in the death penalty makes no difference to English and American law. International law is mostly based on precident as well, with some treaties codifying it, and one of the sources I linked to says that only Nations are bound to honor it when dealing with other nations because of the need to essentially get along.

Nice that you can answer in such a snippy fashion too.... I suspect however the student you disparge at the Naval War College has a much better education than you do by the way, its a Graduate level program. The source cited is a scholarly work with a lot of references.

A reasonable source at the very least. As was the other, which fairly points out the views of all involved.

One of the first things the U.N. did was sit down in Geneva, Switzerland, and try to find a kinder, gentler way to wage war. What better place than Switzerland? (To quote Harry Lime (played by Orson Welles) in The Third Man: "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock!")

In December 1948, the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed the first article of what would be known as the Geneva Conventions. Genocide was defined as murder "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Taking a page from the Nuremberg Trials, the convention drew up a list of punishable crimes "genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; [and] complicity in genocide."

The initial statement on genocide was followed up by subsequent conventions dealing with various related and unrelated aspects of war, including prisoners of war and the treatment of civilians. Three more articles were adopted in 1949, and the Conventions were updated and expanded in 1977.

The Rules
In very broad strokes, here are the major points mandated in the tens of thousands of words and hundreds of rules known as the Geneva Conventions, as identified by the International Red Cross:

Prisoners of war should be "respected and protected" without regard to gender, race, politics or creed.
Prisoners may not be murdered, tortured or subjected to scientific experiments.
War combatants are obligated to search for, collect and care for the wounded and sick after a battle, and they are required to report these activities (as well as the names of prisoners) to the Red Cross.
Combatants may not capture independent parties attempting to provide humanitarian aid or perform search-and-rescue missions.
Hospital facilities may not be used for military purposes.
Prisoners must be allowed to communicate with their families. They must not be subjected to "violence, insults and public curiousity."
POWs are only obligated to provide their captors with their name, rank, serial number and date of birth.
POWs must be provided with reasonable and hyginic shelter, including food, clothing and medical care. They can't be used as human shields. If they are forced to work, they must be compensated and provided with reasonable workplace conditions.
POWs may be tried by their captors in a fair and impartial manner, and they are entitled to competent representation.
At the end of a war, all POWs must be returned to their home countries.
The Red Cross must be permitted to visit privately with POWs, to examine the conditions of their confinement and to distribute humanitarian supplies.
Civilians unfortunate enough to be living in the middle of a war must be allowed to "lead normal lives."
Occupiers of a land must honor the safety, dignity, religious beliefs and cultural mores of the people there.
Civilians are entitled to all the protections accorded to POWs (above), as well as protection from collective punishment or deportation.
Civilians cannot be forced to do military work for an occupying force.
Occupying powers are obliged to support the health and safety of the population with food and medical supplies (or by allowing humanitarian shipments of the same).
"Indiscriminate" attacks on civilians targets are forbidden.
Dams, dikes, nuclear plants, places of worship, cultural landmarks and "objects indispensible to civilian survival" (such as crops or drinking water supplies) may not be specifically targeted.
Soldiers must be over the age of 15.
Weapons which cause inordinate environmental damage, "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" are prohibited.
Using a protected emblem (like the Red Cross) to hide military activity or personnel is a war crime.
Breaking the Rules
Needless to say, once the civilized world agreed on the basic principles of decency and honor, those principles were promptly discarded in favor of expediency and sadism.
Given the fact these rules were largely instituted as a response to Nazi atrocities during WWII, it's ironic that Israel is considered one of the worst offenders, racking up dozens of clear Geneva Conventions violations and hundreds more rumored or suspected violations, mostly concerning the Palestinians.

A 2002 U.N. resolution condemning Israel's treatment of the Palestianians laid out a number of violations, including "the siege of Yasser Arafat’s Headquarters in Ramallah, by the Occupying Power in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Those include annexation and settlement, the reoccupation of Palestinian cities and blocking of roads between them; expulsions and targeted assassination of scores of Palestinians; attacks on ambulances and medical personnel; house demolitions; destruction of water storage facilities; uprooting of thousands of fruit and olive trees; 24-hour curfews; almost permanent closures of towns, villages and cities; and excessive use of force, including weapons of war such as F-16 bombers and helicopter gunships used against apartment houses, refugee camps and other civilian targets, causing the deaths of numerous Palestinians."

In addition, Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, is one of the most notorious and practiced practitioners of interrogative torture in the world.

The use of War Crimes tribunals in relation to the Geneva Conventions has mostly been reserved for a) Third World countries with little power to defend themselves and b) regimes which have collapsed so thoroughly that no one cares what happens to their former leaders. This includes countries like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the great "successes" in international war crime prosecution.



Other countries pretty much do what they want, and no one tries to stop them. Among these nations, the United States stands out as the "Untouchable." U.S. forces and policy-makers have been involved in a number of high-profile incidents over the years, which is one reason the U.S. has opted out of the International Criminal Court initiative.

The best known violations came during the Vietnam War, such as the high-profile My Lai Massacre, and countless proven and alleged incidents involving the destruction of civilian villages, mass defoliation with Agent Orange, the execution of prisoners (civilian and military) and the use of napalm and poison gas.

Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey served on a U.S. death squad operating under orders to kill Vietnamese civilians in the Mekong Delta village of Thanh Phong. He said he was sorry (and he's not from Rwanda), so apparently he doesn't get a war crimes tribunal. And public outcry regularly wells up in calls for a Henry Kissinger tribunal every eight months or so.

After September 11, the U.S. stopped even giving lip service to the rules of war, by declaring al Qaeda operatives and allies "unlawful combatants," which American policy makers took to mean "non-entities." As part of its terrorism-inspired attack on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, the U.S. joined forces with the Northern Alliance, a faction known for its roving rape gangs and frequent execution of prisoners.

Hundreds of prisoners from that invasion were unceremoniously shipped to detention camps in Afghanistan and Cuba where some were imprisoned in the rough equivalent of barbed-wire straightjackets — cells in which they were restrained in a standing position with no range of movement. Several al Qaeda members, from the top echelon leadership to mentally challenged footsoldiers have been shipped to undisclosed locations where they are carefully tortured with an eye toward legalistic loopholes (i.e., probably no rubber hoses or electrodes taped to genitals).

Other highlights of U.S. historical practices include feeding radioactive waste to retarded children during the 1950s and decades of active research into biological and chemical weapons, including anthrax and smallpox. During the 1980s, the fruits of this research were shared with beloved U.S. allies like Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, the 2003 U.S. invasion looks to be a promising source of war crimes to entertain the jaded public for months to come. Although there appeared to be scores of Iraqi civilians killed as "collateral damage" by U.S. attacks within days of the war's start and hundreds (or perhaps thousands) more dying as a result of the coalition's failure to provide legally required support and humanitarian aid to civilians in occupied areas, Saddam Hussein's fighting forces have really been going the extra mile to take the heat off of whatever piddling crimes the Americans manage to muster.

It's almost as if Uday Hussein sat down with the Geneva Conventions handbook and drafted a set of orders designed specifically break every single rule listed therein. Within just the first two weeks, the Iraqis televised humiliating pictures of POWs, apparently executed some prisoners, tortured others and possibly dismembered still others. The Iraqi leadership dressed soldiers in civilian clothing and distributed them among the population, posted armed forces in hospital facilities, launched suicide attacks using soldiers dressed as civilians, and used fake surrenders for sneak attacks. About the only atrocity the Iraqis hadn't pulled off by the end of week two was the deployment of the alleged chemical weapons that provided the pretext for launching the war in the first place.

Needless to say, it's manifestly unfair to single out the U.S. and Iraq for violations of the Geneva Conventions. Not when you can compile similar lists for China (torture, mass executions, biological and chemical weapons), the former Soviet Union (torture, mass executions, genocide, civilian massacres, assassination, biological and chemical weapons), the current Russia (torture, biological and chemical weapons, trafficking in nuclear weapons), North Korea (torture, executions, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons), Turkey (torture, detention camps, ethnic repression), Pakistan (torture, mass executions, assassination, supporting terrorism, military attacks on civilians, nuclear weapons), Saudi Arabia (torture, supporting terrorism, gender-based oppression), Kuwait (ethnically-based slavery), Chile (torture, mass executions), the Philippines (torture and assassination), Iran (mass executions, religious and ethnic repression, chemical and nuclear weapons), Thailand (torture, child sex trade), Singapore (torture), Malaysia (torture, execution, illegal detentions), Sudan (torture, supporting terrorism, mass executions), the Congo (ethnic cleansing, torture, rape gangs, civilian massacres), South Africa (apartheid, torture, assassinations, civilian massacres), Kenya (gender-based persecution, torture, massacres), Uganda (slavery, child abduction, massacres, rape, child sex trade), Cuba (mass detention, assassinations), Colombia (assassinations, mass executions, civilian massacres, drug trade)...

But this is getting tedious, and unfortunately, it could easily go on for pages and pages. The long and the short of it is this: The Geneva Conventions are great fodder for politicians attacking countries they don't like, but if you feel you have been the victim of a violation, you might as well take it to Judge Judy, because you aren't getting a tribunal unless you happen to live in Rwanda, or possibly (at some point in the distant future) Iraq. Have a nice day.

Well, it took me all of about 1 minute to find just those 2 sources, another poster subsequently mention the Hague Convention of War Crimes.

the customs of war, to use only the last 200 years, have always been that an enemy not in uniform is subject to execution with or without trial. Nothing new there at all actually. Up until the mid 19th Century, pirates and slave traders were executed after summary trials generally on the High Seas by whomever captured them.

In other words, the overwhelming body of tradition and custom, which is what US and English Law is based on (Law by Precident) makes my point. Whether 21st Century Western Europe believes in the death penalty makes no difference to English and American law. International law is mostly based on precident as well, with some treaties codifying it, and one of the sources I linked to says that only Nations are bound to honor it when dealing with other nations because of the need to essentially get along.

Nice that you can answer in such a snippy fashion too.... I suspect however the student you disparge at the Naval War College has a much better education than you do by the way, its a Graduate level program. The source cited is a scholarly work with a lot of references.

A reasonable source at the very least. As was the other, which fairly points out the views of all involved.

(1) You completely ignore that your first source contradicts, rather than supports, your premise.

(2) The student in question is undoubtedly better educated than I on the rules of war. He is not better educated than I overall. So your suspicions are erroneous.

(3) Actual experts in international law disagree with your student -- who has a bit of bias.

Having claimed the Geneva Conventions codified that combatants not in uniform could be executed, you now appear to have abandoned that claim and moved to vague notions of the "customs of war." This alone proves my point that your claim was false.

Again, as for the "Hague Convention on War Crimes," to what are you referring? And where does it authorize executions of combatants?

One of the first things the U.N. did was sit down in Geneva, Switzerland, and try to find a kinder, gentler way to wage war. What better place than Switzerland? (To quote Harry Lime (played by Orson Welles) in The Third Man: "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock!")

In December 1948, the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed the first article of what would be known as the Geneva Conventions. Genocide was defined as murder "committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Taking a page from the Nuremberg Trials, the convention drew up a list of punishable crimes "genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; [and] complicity in genocide."

The initial statement on genocide was followed up by subsequent conventions dealing with various related and unrelated aspects of war, including prisoners of war and the treatment of civilians. Three more articles were adopted in 1949, and the Conventions were updated and expanded in 1977.

The Rules
In very broad strokes, here are the major points mandated in the tens of thousands of words and hundreds of rules known as the Geneva Conventions, as identified by the International Red Cross:

Prisoners of war should be "respected and protected" without regard to gender, race, politics or creed.
Prisoners may not be murdered, tortured or subjected to scientific experiments.
War combatants are obligated to search for, collect and care for the wounded and sick after a battle, and they are required to report these activities (as well as the names of prisoners) to the Red Cross.
Combatants may not capture independent parties attempting to provide humanitarian aid or perform search-and-rescue missions.
Hospital facilities may not be used for military purposes.
Prisoners must be allowed to communicate with their families. They must not be subjected to "violence, insults and public curiousity."
POWs are only obligated to provide their captors with their name, rank, serial number and date of birth.
POWs must be provided with reasonable and hyginic shelter, including food, clothing and medical care. They can't be used as human shields. If they are forced to work, they must be compensated and provided with reasonable workplace conditions.
POWs may be tried by their captors in a fair and impartial manner, and they are entitled to competent representation.
At the end of a war, all POWs must be returned to their home countries.
The Red Cross must be permitted to visit privately with POWs, to examine the conditions of their confinement and to distribute humanitarian supplies.
Civilians unfortunate enough to be living in the middle of a war must be allowed to "lead normal lives."
Occupiers of a land must honor the safety, dignity, religious beliefs and cultural mores of the people there.
Civilians are entitled to all the protections accorded to POWs (above), as well as protection from collective punishment or deportation.
Civilians cannot be forced to do military work for an occupying force.
Occupying powers are obliged to support the health and safety of the population with food and medical supplies (or by allowing humanitarian shipments of the same).
"Indiscriminate" attacks on civilians targets are forbidden.
Dams, dikes, nuclear plants, places of worship, cultural landmarks and "objects indispensible to civilian survival" (such as crops or drinking water supplies) may not be specifically targeted.
Soldiers must be over the age of 15.
Weapons which cause inordinate environmental damage, "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" are prohibited.
Using a protected emblem (like the Red Cross) to hide military activity or personnel is a war crime.
Breaking the Rules
Needless to say, once the civilized world agreed on the basic principles of decency and honor, those principles were promptly discarded in favor of expediency and sadism.
Given the fact these rules were largely instituted as a response to Nazi atrocities during WWII, it's ironic that Israel is considered one of the worst offenders, racking up dozens of clear Geneva Conventions violations and hundreds more rumored or suspected violations, mostly concerning the Palestinians.

A 2002 U.N. resolution condemning Israel's treatment of the Palestianians laid out a number of violations, including "the siege of Yasser Arafat’s Headquarters in Ramallah, by the Occupying Power in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Those include annexation and settlement, the reoccupation of Palestinian cities and blocking of roads between them; expulsions and targeted assassination of scores of Palestinians; attacks on ambulances and medical personnel; house demolitions; destruction of water storage facilities; uprooting of thousands of fruit and olive trees; 24-hour curfews; almost permanent closures of towns, villages and cities; and excessive use of force, including weapons of war such as F-16 bombers and helicopter gunships used against apartment houses, refugee camps and other civilian targets, causing the deaths of numerous Palestinians."

In addition, Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, is one of the most notorious and practiced practitioners of interrogative torture in the world.

The use of War Crimes tribunals in relation to the Geneva Conventions has mostly been reserved for a) Third World countries with little power to defend themselves and b) regimes which have collapsed so thoroughly that no one cares what happens to their former leaders. This includes countries like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the great "successes" in international war crime prosecution.



Other countries pretty much do what they want, and no one tries to stop them. Among these nations, the United States stands out as the "Untouchable." U.S. forces and policy-makers have been involved in a number of high-profile incidents over the years, which is one reason the U.S. has opted out of the International Criminal Court initiative.

The best known violations came during the Vietnam War, such as the high-profile My Lai Massacre, and countless proven and alleged incidents involving the destruction of civilian villages, mass defoliation with Agent Orange, the execution of prisoners (civilian and military) and the use of napalm and poison gas.

Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey served on a U.S. death squad operating under orders to kill Vietnamese civilians in the Mekong Delta village of Thanh Phong. He said he was sorry (and he's not from Rwanda), so apparently he doesn't get a war crimes tribunal. And public outcry regularly wells up in calls for a Henry Kissinger tribunal every eight months or so.

After September 11, the U.S. stopped even giving lip service to the rules of war, by declaring al Qaeda operatives and allies "unlawful combatants," which American policy makers took to mean "non-entities." As part of its terrorism-inspired attack on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, the U.S. joined forces with the Northern Alliance, a faction known for its roving rape gangs and frequent execution of prisoners.

Hundreds of prisoners from that invasion were unceremoniously shipped to detention camps in Afghanistan and Cuba where some were imprisoned in the rough equivalent of barbed-wire straightjackets — cells in which they were restrained in a standing position with no range of movement. Several al Qaeda members, from the top echelon leadership to mentally challenged footsoldiers have been shipped to undisclosed locations where they are carefully tortured with an eye toward legalistic loopholes (i.e., probably no rubber hoses or electrodes taped to genitals).

Other highlights of U.S. historical practices include feeding radioactive waste to retarded children during the 1950s and decades of active research into biological and chemical weapons, including anthrax and smallpox. During the 1980s, the fruits of this research were shared with beloved U.S. allies like Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, the 2003 U.S. invasion looks to be a promising source of war crimes to entertain the jaded public for months to come. Although there appeared to be scores of Iraqi civilians killed as "collateral damage" by U.S. attacks within days of the war's start and hundreds (or perhaps thousands) more dying as a result of the coalition's failure to provide legally required support and humanitarian aid to civilians in occupied areas, Saddam Hussein's fighting forces have really been going the extra mile to take the heat off of whatever piddling crimes the Americans manage to muster.

It's almost as if Uday Hussein sat down with the Geneva Conventions handbook and drafted a set of orders designed specifically break every single rule listed therein. Within just the first two weeks, the Iraqis televised humiliating pictures of POWs, apparently executed some prisoners, tortured others and possibly dismembered still others. The Iraqi leadership dressed soldiers in civilian clothing and distributed them among the population, posted armed forces in hospital facilities, launched suicide attacks using soldiers dressed as civilians, and used fake surrenders for sneak attacks. About the only atrocity the Iraqis hadn't pulled off by the end of week two was the deployment of the alleged chemical weapons that provided the pretext for launching the war in the first place.

Needless to say, it's manifestly unfair to single out the U.S. and Iraq for violations of the Geneva Conventions. Not when you can compile similar lists for China (torture, mass executions, biological and chemical weapons), the former Soviet Union (torture, mass executions, genocide, civilian massacres, assassination, biological and chemical weapons), the current Russia (torture, biological and chemical weapons, trafficking in nuclear weapons), North Korea (torture, executions, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons), Turkey (torture, detention camps, ethnic repression), Pakistan (torture, mass executions, assassination, supporting terrorism, military attacks on civilians, nuclear weapons), Saudi Arabia (torture, supporting terrorism, gender-based oppression), Kuwait (ethnically-based slavery), Chile (torture, mass executions), the Philippines (torture and assassination), Iran (mass executions, religious and ethnic repression, chemical and nuclear weapons), Thailand (torture, child sex trade), Singapore (torture), Malaysia (torture, execution, illegal detentions), Sudan (torture, supporting terrorism, mass executions), the Congo (ethnic cleansing, torture, rape gangs, civilian massacres), South Africa (apartheid, torture, assassinations, civilian massacres), Kenya (gender-based persecution, torture, massacres), Uganda (slavery, child abduction, massacres, rape, child sex trade), Cuba (mass detention, assassinations), Colombia (assassinations, mass executions, civilian massacres, drug trade)...

But this is getting tedious, and unfortunately, it could easily go on for pages and pages. The long and the short of it is this: The Geneva Conventions are great fodder for politicians attacking countries they don't like, but if you feel you have been the victim of a violation, you might as well take it to Judge Judy, because you aren't getting a tribunal unless you happen to live in Rwanda, or possibly (at some point in the distant future) Iraq. Have a nice day.

A fairly accurate description, taken from this website (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war-crimes/geneva-conventions/).

I hope you are not suggesting that, simply because the Geneva Conventions are violated and not always enforced, we should not feel bound by them.

The same could be said of most US criminal laws. Yet we still consider them to have both moral and legal force.

good post whispering legs

or as was said in the movie "Pirates of the Caribbean"....'we look at the code as more a guideline' (to paraphase liberally)

US and other Western POWs have for the most part been treated according to the rules... Terrorists have not been so treated but are generally not executed either (even the idiots who planted a truck bomb in the World Trade Center back in the early 1990s)

US and other Westerners captured however have not even remotely been treated under these guidelines. Basically, only the Western nations attempt to follow these rules, and few Third World nations even attempt to give anything beyond lip service.

To compare and contrast...

The US had the military power to completely erase the city of Baghdad as a geographic location and kill practically every living soul in it. Even without using nuclear weapons (consider what a couple of dozen B1s would do, each dropping about 50 750 pound bombs in a carpet... a moonscape would have been created). Instead, the city is captured with minimal civilian casualties, and not many more Iraqi combat troops killed either. (setting aside the insurgency that has occured since)

A terrorist group hijacks a civilian aircraft, kills or at least injures the crew, crashes it into a building with the the goal of killing as many civilians as possible.

Who is the bigger criminal here?

good post whispering legs

or as was said in the movie "Pirates of the Caribbean"....'we look at the code as more a guideline' (to paraphase liberally)

US and other Western POWs have for the most part been treated according to the rules... Terrorists have not been so treated but are generally not executed either (even the idiots who planted a truck bomb in the World Trade Center back in the early 1990s)

US and other Westerners captured however have not even remotely been treated under these guidelines. Basically, only the Western nations attempt to follow these rules, and few Third World nations even attempt to give anything beyond lip service.

To compare and contrast...

The US had the military power to completely erase the city of Baghdad as a geographic location and kill practically every living soul in it. Even without using nuclear weapons (consider what a couple of dozen B1s would do, each dropping about 50 750 pound bombs in a carpet... a moonscape would have been created). Instead, the city is captured with minimal civilian casualties, and not many more Iraqi combat troops killed either. (setting aside the insurgency that has occured since)

A terrorist group hijacks a civilian aircraft, kills or at least injures the crew, crashes it into a building with the the goal of killing as many civilians as possible.

Who is the bigger criminal here?

"But Mom they did it worse" is not a compelling moral argument in the playground, let alone in human rights.

I will gladly defend the US's record on human rights in many respects. And it is undeniable that other nations and organizations have far, far more to answer for than the US.

None of this, however, is a reason to ignore or excuse US violations of human rights when they occur. To the contrary, I am in the best position to demand my own nation acting on my behalf set an example for the world.

A fairly accurate description, taken from this website (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war-crimes/geneva-conventions/).

I hope you are not suggesting that, simply because the Geneva Conventions are violated and not always enforced, we should not feel bound by them.

The same could be said of most US criminal laws. Yet we still consider them to have both moral and legal force.

Yes, I am suggesting that laws only have legal force inasmuch as they are enforced. Unenforced laws have no legal force. More to the point, if no one faces the certainty of being caught, and the certainty of being punished, the law can be said not to exist. One might even say that if you don't enforce the law at all, you can't subsequently single out one violator and punish them.

I talk to a great number of felons. Most of them have no real recognition of the law - they are only aware of what I call the "bright line" that is not the law, but the certainty of being caught. They know the habits of policemen. They know the rules surrounding arrest and evidence. They know when to keep their mouths shut - without having to talk to a lawyer or go to law school. The smarter ones are better at not crossing the bright line. The dumb ones get caught frequently, or for bigger stakes.

In an environment with no real enforcement, people will act according to their own desires and self-interest - not according to any morality. If there is no bright line, it's not just a possibility that anything can happen - there is the certainty that everything *will* happen.

"But Mom they did it worse" is not a compelling moral argument in the playground, let alone in human rights.

I will gladly defend the US's record on human rights in many respects. And it is undeniable that other nations and organizations have far, far more to answer for than the US.

None of this, however, is a reason to ignore or excuse US violations of human rights when they occur. To the contrary, I am in the best position to demand my own nation acting on my behalf set an example for the world.

One could not ask for more!!!

@ Whispering Legs: The only problem is that with the U.S. as the only super-power left, nobody can do anything but voice their objection or concern when they cross that "bright line" or intentionally act opposingly to international law.

Remember that the U.N. has chosen New York as their headquarters because when it was founded, the U.S. were the shining light of freedom...
Funny that the U.S. only paid their annual fees which built up for years and years only after 9/11 happened and when it was finally them who wanted something from the U.N.

Despite the fact that this is borrowed from Spiderman: With great
power comes great responsibility, if you like it or not.

So please, become the friendly neighborhood Spiderman and remember that action doesn't always have to include the military option first... (and it's 'catches thieves (or the evil guys) just like flies' - not kills... :D

"But Mom they did it worse" is not a compelling moral argument in the playground, let alone in human rights.

I will gladly defend the US's record on human rights in many respects. And it is undeniable that other nations and organizations have far, far more to answer for than the US.

None of this, however, is a reason to ignore or excuse US violations of human rights when they occur. To the contrary, I am in the best position to demand my own nation acting on my behalf set an example for the world.

I can live with that approach, its reasonable and to the standards Jefferson and Washington (to name but 2 of the founding fathers) set down for us.

I merely get annoyed with the "America is an evil imperialistic warmonger" stuff that frequently shows up on these threads, or with the constant zealous idealogical arguements that ignore logic, history or reasonableness.

So we have found common ground, more or less

Despite the fact that this is borrowed from Spiderman: With great
power comes great responsibility, if you like it or not.

So please, become the friendly neighborhood Spiderman and remember that action doesn't always have to include the military option first... (and it's 'catches thieves (or the evil guys) just like flies' - not kills... :D

Perish forbid! I would never get my moral identity from Stan Lee.

Yes, I am suggesting that laws only have legal force inasmuch as they are enforced.

How would you enforce international law when you're up against the only superpower left? That is the bottomline for many of my discussions with a lot of people from the U.S. and abroad...

Perish forbid! I would never get my moral identity from Stan Lee.

Even though Stan the man has got a point there?!?

Comics may be regarded as colorful kids books but I regard them as pieces of art and they definitely helped me learn English :D

How would you enforce international law when you're up against the only superpower left? That is the bottomline for many of my discussions with a lot of people from the U.S. and abroad...

At best, we could only enforce it as those laws were translated into US Code or US military regulations.

The UN is a moribund organization. The only nations to bring people other than their own citizens to justice at the Hague were the US and UK when they brought Serbs to the Hague. NATO took action in Serbia when the UN would not (you can't blame the US for taking action there).

I would suggest that the EU and the United States re-charter and rename NATO as a world enforcement body.

I would explicitly leave out every other nation on Earth, until they met certain minimum conditions.

I merely get annoyed with the "America is an evil imperialistic warmonger" stuff that frequently shows up on these threads, or with the constant zealous idealogical arguements that ignore logic, history or reasonableness.

Wohoo!!! That's what I wanted to hear: Finally somebody who might understand what it is like as a German to be still be regarded as the Nazi nomatter what...

Wohoo!!! That's what I wanted to hear: Finally somebody who might understand what it is like as a German to be still be regarded as the Nazi nomatter what...

I haven't met any young Germans (below age 30) who I felt were Nazis. Plenty of old folks, though, especially over age 60.

The UN is a moribund organization. The only nations to bring people other than their own citizens to justice at the Hague were the US and UK when they brought Serbs to the Hague. NATO took action in Serbia when the UN would not (you can't blame the US for taking action there).

Well, the U.N. is a governing body which heavily relies on its member states to enforce the law - unless somebody (hint hint) was willing to step up to the needs, yes, we've got a problem...

As for NATO - I think that organisation needs a complete overhaul (already on the way, isn't it?). Same is true for the U.N., the only world-wide organisation to include (almost?) every country in the world. That is a common ground to work with, but the U.N. still reflects the world of 1948 (security counsil members and such)

I can live with that approach, its reasonable and to the standards Jefferson and Washington (to name but 2 of the founding fathers) set down for us.

I merely get annoyed with the "America is an evil imperialistic warmonger" stuff that frequently shows up on these threads, or with the constant zealous idealogical arguements that ignore logic, history or reasonableness.

So we have found common ground, more or less

Agreed.

Instinctive defense of the US no matter what it does is bad, but the instinctive bashing of the US at all times is worse.

Wohoo!!! That's what I wanted to hear: Finally somebody who might understand what it is like as a German to be still be regarded as the Nazi nomatter what...

i hate the reputation given to germans as being nazis, i have a surplus german army parka which has the german flag on, and people call me a nazi, when im clearly a Marxist

I haven't met any young Germans (below age 30) who I felt were Nazis. Plenty of old folks, though, especially over age 60.

And yet on more than one occasion when visiting the U.S. I was asked the following questions by different people (East Coast, West Coast, North, South...):

0. "You're from Germany?" raises right arm...

1. Are you a nazi?

2. Shouldn't you be wearing a uniform?/Where is your nazi-uniform?/Do you still wear nazi-uniforms?

3. Is Adolf Hitler still alive/your chancellor?

4. Do you have electricity/telephones/television?

5. Do you have cars/planes?

and so on and so on...

Now, that is annoying!

I usually answer like this:

1. But of course, I'll tell you all about it after we killed a couple of Injuns and your slaves have served us the tea.

2. I'm a spy incognito - but don't tell anyone./It's at the cleaner's./Yes, but only when having parades for mass events like the upcoming soccer world championship.

3. Sure, he's looking younger than ever with his 116 years although he's bald and no, he's not dyeing his mustache!/Yes, he's won every 15372977726473 elections with a 100% approval rate.

4. Electricity? No, we still live on trees, the more advancced tribes dwell in caves though.

Telephones? Does the name Philipp Reis ring a bell? He introduced something new on Octobre 26th 1861, 15 years before Alexander Graham Bell introduced his... actually I usually say we still use smoke signals and cannot communicate on rainy days...

Television? Ever heard of Paul Julius Gottlieb Nipkow? Manfred von Ardenne? Ferdinand Braun? We had the first television broadcast of the world on March 22nd 1935 and we therefore the longest continiously running television program.

5. Cars? We invented them (Benz, Otto, Daimler, Maybach, Diesel) and still build the best on the globe (Have to say that, my dad works for Volkswagen ;) )

Planes?

Check out http://www.lilienthal-museum.de/olma/ehome.htm

or

google what Wilhelm Kress did on Octobre 1st 1901 or Gustav Weißkopf on August 14th...

You see - that is something that I have and had to put up with.

I just wish that Germany would finally go back to its roots as great scientists (with a conscience!!!) and inventors - maybe then we will be remembered not only for 12 years of hell on earth?

At best, we could only enforce it as those laws were translated into US Code or US military regulations.

The UN is a moribund organization. The only nations to bring people other than their own citizens to justice at the Hague were the US and UK when they brought Serbs to the Hague. NATO took action in Serbia when the UN would not (you can't blame the US for taking action there).

I would suggest that the EU and the United States re-charter and rename NATO as a world enforcement body.

I would explicitly leave out every other nation on Earth, until they met certain minimum conditions.

Jerry Pournelles' "The CoDominion" essentially.... we will see I suppose.. depends how threatened the West feels