NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3441669

That is an editorial from a Savannah news station, WTOC. They have weekly editorials, but I believe that this one stands out from the rest. Its very eye opening, and it prooves many valid points. I believe that it is a must read for everybody.

The concepts of pro-America, or anti-America are retarded. One should be for or against specific policies, not whole nations. :rolleyes:

Wow he even slipped in a dig at the ACLU :rolleyes:

Too bad the simpleton doesn't realise he is giving AI publicity.....

The concepts of pro-America, or anti-America are retarded. One should be for or against specific policies, not whole nations. :rolleyes:

Well you have to look at the shrub for that "either you are with us...."

*has aneurysm and dies*

Oh, and I agree with the "against policies, not nations" bit. Although, sadly, that just isn't the way things are seen.

he's entitled to his opinion, a bit askew on some of the points, but i suppose thats the point of an editorial.
But again, its not 'Anti Americanism' as he calls it, it 'Anti XYZ policy of the Govt.'

http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3441669

That is an editorial from a Savannah news station, WTOC. They have weekly editorials, but I believe that this one stands out from the rest. Its very eye opening, and it prooves many valid points. I believe that it is a must read for everybody.

Yes, yes, yes. The South shall rise again. Good going WTOC.

Well you have to look at the shrub for that "either you are with us...."

Unfortunately, people buy into that kind of shit.

Wow he even slipped in a dig at the ACLU :rolleyes:

Too bad the simpleton doesn't realise he is giving AI publicity.....

Now why is he a simpleton? Is it because he's expressing his own opinion and it conflicts with yours? If thats the case you're a simpleton as well.
:rolleyes:

http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3441669

That is an editorial from a Savannah news station, WTOC. They have weekly editorials, but I believe that this one stands out from the rest. Its very eye opening, and it proves many valid points. I believe that it is a must read for everybody.

"...it proves many vaild points."
? What does it prove? I see no evidence, just assertions.

"...it is a must read for everybody."

...Its a talking points memo, copied nearly word for word from speeches and press statements. It gives no data, no sources, no interviews, no quotes, no pictures, no audio recordings, no...well, nothing at all to support itself. Just words.

Words have power, but do they "prove" anything? Why is this a "must-read" anyway? Just how old are you? Do you understand that assertions do not make factual evidence?

Yes, yes, yes. The South shall rise again. Good going WTOC.


Now now you know better than that..nothing about that article exposed pro-South feelings and nothing the original poster did encouraged the same.

Lets tone down the infantile quips.

"...it proves many vaild points."
? What does it prove? I see no evidence, just assertions.

"...it is a must read for everybody."

...Its a talking points memo, copied nearly word for word from speeches and press statements. It gives no data, no sources, no interviews, no quotes, no pictures, no audio recordings, no...well, nothing at all to support itself. Just words.

Words have power, but do they "prove" anything? Why is this a "must-read" anyway? Just how old are you? Do you understand that assertions do not make factual evidence?

Well..its an editorial..he doesnt have to provide the proof then and there because those who watch the news get some form of it already. The comment about Guantanmo being a Gulag made by AI was reported in my own hometown paper. But what other evidence are you looking for? The editorial was pretty straight forward.

Man, talk about retarded.

If you attack the govt, that means you are un-american?

Now, if the govt is the true America, then I do hate america. However, it is in my belief that this government is not the true America, and thus I hate the government while loving America, since it promises freedom and liberty that the current government is seeking to stomp out. Unfortunately, people tend to mesh to two seperate things together. Bush's "You're either with us or against us" may attract people b/c they see that as a sign of a "strong leader", which is really stupid. It just means he's a dictator. People have the right to compare us to the Russians. We're doing exactly what they did, although less drastically. Anybody who does not support the government and it's actions is shot... or, in this case, politically attacked. So, you see, it's the same thing, save that the government isn't being so open about it's aggression.

I wonder if the guy has ever visited guantanamo. I would rather take the international Red Cross' word. This is one of the first times we have been labled as a major human rights offender, so they obviously aren't just anti-American.

And what the hell is this about enemy combatents who would like to kill your family? These are people taken from their homes, or taken from their travels. Atleast the vast majority are

Man, this guy is crazy. Talk about anti-everything. No wonder he attacks ACLU.

Liberal Media? heh. You wish. We have air america and Keith Olbermann, and you have Fox and everything else.

yeh. Liberating millions. Don't pay attention to the fact that we've killed more Iraqis that Saddam did... civilian Iraqis...

critical time of global war... wonder who created that crisis...

People listen to these guys? Anybody who pays the littlest amount of attention to the actual facts would realize this guy is completely wacko.

Now now you know better than that..nothing about that article exposed pro-South feelings and nothing the original poster did encouraged the same.

Lets tone down the infantile quips.

Ok, I stand duly chastized and will go stand in the corner for 30 minutes. :(

Oh, by the way, he has every right to express his opinion. I personally just think he's... nuts...

Bush's "You're either with us or against us"

I do believe President Bush said that with reference to the war on terrorism. My question is; Is there any middle ground? If you are not with the US on the war on terrorism, can you be anything but against it?

If you attack the govt, that means you are un-american?


To be TRUELY patriotic, one must question their govt at every turn. Seems lost today though...
:(

Well..its an editorial..he doesnt have to provide the proof then and there because those who watch the news get some form of it already. The comment about Guantanmo being a Gulag made by AI was reported in my own hometown paper. But what other evidence are you looking for? The editorial was pretty straight forward.

...The editorial was presented as "proof" remember? I quoted the first poster directly. He said it was a must-read. That is fairly high praise for an op-ed now, isn't it?

So...where's the proof? I'm told by Gray's Hill that he found a wonderful, must-read editorial that proves something. I find instead some cut-and-paste job that a newspaper printed somewhere. It give startling evidence in the form of a blanket denial...nothing more.

Evidence takes the form of, oh, I don't know, evidence? You've seen how courts work, right? If the US was charged with murdering a detainee, simply saying "No, we didn't" is not going to cut it. Why, no murderer in the world would get convicted with an attitude like that. "I didn't do it." and *poof* you're off the hook!

I don't TRUST my government's words, I expect them to provide EVIDENCE to the contrary. These allegations are serious, a simple headshake and a wink from an editorial doesn't prove a damn thing. It just makes me wonder why they haven't released more evidence to contradict these allegations.

So again, why did Grays Hill waste ALL OF OUR TIME with this op-ed? It has done nothing to bolster the assertion that the US is innocent of the charges, if anything it casts suspicion upon it.

Man, talk about retarded.

If you attack the govt, that means you are un-american?

Now, if the govt is the true America, then I do hate america. However, it is in my belief that this government is not the true America, and thus I hate the government while loving America, since it promises freedom and liberty that the current government is seeking to stomp out. Unfortunately, people tend to mesh to two seperate things together. Bush's "You're either with us or against us" may attract people b/c they see that as a sign of a "strong leader", which is really stupid. It just means he's a dictator. People have the right to compare us to the Russians. We're doing exactly what they did, although less drastically. Anybody who does not support the government and it's actions is shot... or, in this case, politically attacked. So, you see, it's the same thing, save that the government isn't being so open about it's aggression.

I wonder if the guy has ever visited guantanamo. I would rather take the international Red Cross' word. This is one of the first times we have been labled as a major human rights offender, so they obviously aren't just anti-American.

And what the hell is this about enemy combatents who would like to kill your family? These are people taken from their homes, or taken from their travels. Atleast the vast majority are

Man, this guy is crazy. Talk about anti-everything. No wonder he attacks ACLU.

Liberal Media? heh. You wish. We have air america and Keith Olbermann, and you have Fox and everything else.

yeh. Liberating millions. Don't pay attention to the fact that we've killed more Iraqis that Saddam did... civilian Iraqis...

critical time of global war... wonder who created that crisis...

People listen to these guys? Anybody who pays the littlest amount of attention to the actual facts would realize this guy is completely wacko.

He spoke up against the ACLU because they've also been critical of Guantanmo Bay..it wasnt out of no where. Also plenty of folks dont support the President and arent politically attacked. Put it on CSPAN whenever Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth.

As for the enemy combatants...you contradicted yourself..not all of them want to kill your family but some do? You want to make the distinction between the two? Because if they cant down in Guantanmo what makes you the expert?

Liberal media..this is a trueish and a myth all at the same time. It isnt as pervasive, but it is the majority of the media. You can point to Fox and scream bias, but I can point to CNN and do the same. Its all in the tone and the way reporters phrase comments. As for killing Iraqis..whats an unbiased count of those killed by the US and those killed by Saddam? One of the major differences is when the US drops a bomb and it misses its mark everyone points and screams about how the US is evil..some Tinpot dictator does it and no one cares..

As for the global war...before 9/11 Bush didnt give a rats ass about the Middle East. He told Israel and Palestine to deal with the problem themselves, our biggest diplomatic crises was a downed EP-3 and the crew held by China. Before that he was borderline isolationists. According to the terrorists this attack was years in the making, its not the fault of the current administration that the previous one dropped the ball. Heck its not even so much the Clinton administrations fault..it lies with the intelligence agencies..but this is going off on a tangent for another discussion..I'm just saying that before you start blaming the government you check your facts.

Well he makes a few points. I mean comparing everything you don't like to the historical extreme is stupid. There was even something on the daily show about how everyone compares others that they do not like to Hitler. But the article is way too radical on the other end as well. It defends the camp to an illogical degree.

...The editorial was presented as "proof" remember? I quoted the first poster directly. He said it was a must-read. That is fairly high praise for an op-ed now, isn't it?

So...where's the proof? I'm told by Gray's Hill that he found a wonderful, must-read editorial that proves something. I find instead some cut-and-paste job that a newspaper printed somewhere. It give startling evidence in the form of a blanket denial...nothing more.

Evidence takes the form of, oh, I don't know, evidence? You've seen how courts work, right? If the US was charged with murdering a detainee, simply saying "No, we didn't" is not going to cut it. Why, no murderer in the world would get convicted with an attitude like that. "I didn't do it." and *poof* you're off the hook!

I don't TRUST my government's words, I expect them to provide EVIDENCE to the contrary. These allegations are serious, a simple headshake and a wink from an editorial doesn't prove a damn thing. It just makes me wonder why they haven't released more evidence to contradict these allegations.

So again, why did Grays Hill waste ALL OF OUR TIME with this op-ed? It has done nothing to bolster the assertion that the US is innocent of the charges, if anything it casts suspicion upon it.


Now you've been here since 2003..you know how Grays Hill tilts toward the right..now before you even clicked on the link you did realize who posted it right? You do know what common sense is and what common sense would dictate about that article right? Its Grays Hill opinion that the article is a must read. It doesnt really need to be your opinion over it. Also, Grays Hill doesnt really say what the proof is..he says it provides proof of some valid points. Like the AI being biased..I mean you dont really call something a Gulag when it doesnt even compare to what the Gulags are. You do know what the Gulags are right? They were for internal political prisoners in which they were made to do forced labor in harsh conditions. Millions died in them..how many died in Guantamo? Where is the murder?

This article is laughable. It drowns into its own rhetorics.

Examples:

Nothing at Guantanamo has even approached real abuse, let alone torture. Childish assertions, when compared to the very-real abuse and torture suffered by American prisoners in W.W. II, Korea and Viet Nam. And lest we forget.

OK. So american soldiers were captured, tortured and/or executed during 3 unrelated wars. What's the point? What's the argument? Let's suppose we decide to torture inmates in Guantanamo, but at 90% the torture level that was used by Viet Congs. Would it be justified? So the argument goes that way: "Viet Congs tortured americans in the 1960's, so we're allowed to slap, kick, sleep-deprive & drug Afghans in the 1990's" ?

Reminds me of that boy who punches his little brother on the nose. His father, angry, asks him why he did that, and he answers: "Last week I was beaten by the neighbor, so don't blame me for JUST punching my brother just a little." Come on.

By the way, Iraqi soldiers treated American POWs very well during the last Iraq war. Remember this woman soldier who was treated in a Bagdhad hospital? But in other conflicts, this is not the case: for example, American soldiers being tied to flagpoles by Milosevic's thugs. But the point is: the US army doesn't always follow the "best practices" for the treatment of POWs.

Those detainees being held at Guantanamo aren’t Norwegian bankers. They’re fanatical militants, captured in combat, who, if released now, as some naively suggest, would be only too happy to slaughter your family, if but given the chance.

This guy's got everything wrong.

What critics of Guantanamo say is NOT "liberate them"! Holy shit!!!!!
What they say is: "Put them on trial, do something with them, for God's sake!" You can't possibly keep them in detention (for life?) without an accusation, a trial and a judgement. Either civilian or military, that's OK. Most of them were arrested during military operations by the US; since they weren't arrested during combat, they are not POWs. And since they weren't arrested by any kind of police force, they're were not accused of anything. Some of them weren't even told why they were arrested.

How convenient it is, to keep these men outside the reach of civil justice... and out of military justics, all at the same time. So currently they're non-humans, people with no status and no right, being help on a land with no law and no status.

They're not allowed to send letters to their relatives; the letters that are sent out are heavily edited and totally unreadable. They were never told how long they would be kept in. Some of them were told that they would be executed. (Stress & duress tactics.)

So they are bad. Well, bad or not, they deserve a trial. As every human does when accused of something. Oh wait, they weren't accused.

Okay comparing the tortures goes to prove, no one listens to the Geneva convention when they're holding US POWs why should the US listen to the Geneva convention? What stands out in my mind the most is the story reported of a medic who fell out of a helicopter durning a mission in Afganistan, and was shot by Taliban forces. He wasnt captured, he wasnt treated well. He was shot. Now the whole they did it so why cant we approach might not be the most mature attitude but I for one am tired by playing by the rules if the other side wont.

The story about the female POW...you know how they found her? The doctor who was treating her overheard the captors saying they were going to torture and rape her. Nice example you gave there. Couldnt have had a bigger bullseye in putting holes in it. As for keeping them out of the reach of justice many in the government have said they cant be kept forever, and many have been pushing for military tribunals. Some of them have been taken in combat, but you fail to realize the Geneva convention has set guidelines over what is a POW and they dont fall under those definitions. If anything being in civilian clothes with weapons they could be classified as spies as executed..but that would rile up the world wouldnt it? :rolleyes:

All I can say is that it is very sad when Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, who is from Portugal, has a better command of the english language than Bush, as he did today.

Now you've been here since 2003..you know how Grays Hill tilts toward the right..now before you even clicked on the link you did realize who posted it right? You do know what common sense is and what common sense would dictate about that article right? Its Grays Hill opinion that the article is a must read. It doesnt really need to be your opinion over it. Also, Grays Hill doesnt really say what the proof is..he says it provides proof of some valid points.

While indeed I have been here for quite some time, I stay away from many of the more partisan threads, and I am only familiar with a tiny minority of NS posters. I have seen Grays Hill before, I think, but I have no idea of the politics that Grays Hill espouses, even in a general sense.

But regardless of that, one has to have standards. I will hold anyone's feet over the coals if they post something as fact that is simply assertion. That's why I asked Gray's Hill how old they were, because I cannot believe someone with critical thinking skills would post something like this "must read".

I'm not gonna give ANYONE a free pass on this board. Be they friendly to me or hostile. In the end, the only thing that matters to me on this board is good policy. If Grays Hill or anyone else has a case for the quality of Gitmo's treatment of detainees, the legal status of the detainee label, or the partisain nature of human rights groups, let them make it.

Persent evidence and justify your policy position, don't spout talking points and slogans like a machine.

K....


He has every right to his opinion. As do you, original poster. I for one am proud of my Anti-Americanism. If it pisses off the President - good. If it ruffles the feathers of some conservative pundit - also good. I refuse to be pro-America, when America stands for things I oppose. I will be glad to toe the line, when the line is somewhere I can stomach.

Until then, he can whine all he wants about how I am petty, how I need to be with the President in this time of "Global War," that's his right to free speech. I support free speech. For now though, I stand with the ACLU, with Amnesty International, with the International Community, and with the sane nations of the world. His article won't change that, but a 2008 election might. We'll wait and see.

Okay comparing the tortures goes to prove, no one listens to the Geneva convention when they're holding US POWs why should the US listen to the Geneva convention?

Because that's what good nations do. America is better than that. We should follow international law, because that's what we're about. Do you want us mentioned in the same breath with Stalinist Russia? Maybe I'm idealistic.

Now why is he a simpleton? Is it because he's expressing his own opinion and it conflicts with yours? If thats the case you're a simpleton as well.
:rolleyes:

It's called advertising my son.

Negative can be just as good as positive. If you want to silence AI then don't give them air time.

AI has postive aspects so now with his comments, there are people that probably heard of AI or some that even have not; now they are going to check AI out.

He probably helped their enrollment. But the only way to check that out would be to look at their ledgers.

Call me what you will but I learned awhile ago that enlightenment comes from knowing you are an idiot! ;)

I do believe President Bush said that with reference to the war on terrorism. My question is; Is there any middle ground? If you are not with the US on the war on terrorism, can you be anything but against it?

Well the shrub seems to have that viewpoint on many things. He just says it different. Wish I could recall the comments he said of the democratic senators over one of his issues.....

I do believe President Bush said that with reference to the war on terrorism. My question is; Is there any middle ground? If you are not with the US on the war on terrorism, can you be anything but against it?
a) A war on terrorism is impossible. Terrorism has always existed, and will always exist as long as there is politics and disadvantaged people.
b) Yes there is a middle ground. You can be either
- with the US but against the way this war is fought, or against the war itself
- unhappy with America, but still be happy they bomb places (although that is less common)
c) Don't read anything into this. He said "with us or with the terrorists" That's one simple message for everyone to fall in line, people and nations. When I heard him say it on TV, I said "I guess I'm with the terrorists then" because that kind of rhetoric is one easy way to genocidal totalitarianism.

I'm just saying that before you start blaming the government you check your facts.

That does go both ways. Has anybody read the reports? I don't see too many comments about "That point is false because....." It's more of the personal attacks and dismissal attempts.

I wonder if the fellow even read AI's report?

That does go both ways. Has anybody read the reports? I don't see too many comments about "That point is false because....." It's more of the personal attacks and dismissal attempts.

I wonder if the fellow even read AI's report?

I dont think he read the report..I do think he saw Irene Khan head of AI call Guantanmo Bay the Gulag of our time. That is his big peeve. That of all places to be described to, a Gulag? Its completely inaccurate.

Comparing two things does not entail equating two things with one another. There is a measure of relativism involved that adults are expected to understand when conversing. People who come unhinged at the idea of comparing Guantánamo to a gulag have failed to meet this basic adult prerequisite to sane conversation.

Hear Hear!!!

I'm always entertained...and disgusted...by people who say things like "We don't do anything nearly as bad as the Soviets or Nazis did! So what if we sleep-deprive, drug, psychologically torment, (and occasionally beat) our prisoners! At least we aren't lining them up and shooting them!"
For these people I have a message: just because you're "not as bad as Hitler," doesn't make you a paragon of integrity. This kind of thinking seems like it would lead to "Well, we only killed half as many people as Stalin, so we're still valiant defenders of human rights!"

Here is a bit about Gitmo that I found on the net

"Soldiers are specifically instructed not to walk in certain areas during their "prayer time" as it may disturb the Muslims.

They get three square meals a day.

They get air conditioning.

They get their Korans.

About interrogation....Do you call sleep deprivation torture? If so, then what is your definition of interrogation? Apparently it's nothing, just to release them even though they're a national security threat - we've met some terrorists twice on the battlefield.

It's a welcome break from the regular standby for these Islamic Jihadists. What happens in return if one of our guys is captured? They get their heads cut off, no questions asked. They don't get to read Bibles or get three meals a day or air conditioning.

These scumbags don't deserve a trial becuase they're not citizens of the United States. they're not POWs because they don't fight for a nation and don't wear a uniform. Hence, they're classified as "enemy combants".

And if you want to believe your moron buddies in the Senate such as Dick Durbin go ahead. It's just the true mainstream liberal voice today, and it's pushing them further and further away from political power."

I dont know about you...but this sounds like pretty good treatment for someone we are fighting. This is war for Christ's sake! And what do you expect out of interrogationgs and prison, songs about holding hands and skipping through fields of daiseys? And of course there are going to be those zelous US soldiers few who take it to the next level, but they are dealt with accordingly. The last I heard Christine Augilara songs were being used to try to get one inmate to talk... Oh, and by the way, we gave them the Korans, we sure as hell can take them back.

There are no rules in war.

Comparing two things does not entail equating two things with one another. There is a measure of relativism involved that adults are expected to understand when conversing. People who come unhinged at the idea of comparing Guantánamo to a gulag have failed to meet this basic adult prerequisite to sane conversation.

And those who make such accusations out of thin air without being given the opportunity to check on Guantanmo themselves(the US military only gives the Red Cross access) dont really deserve to be given much attention.Now quite frankly its really no surprise what the world thinks of Bush but they're allowing personal prejudices of the government, as are you to get in the way of the fact this is a military run prison. Its not supposed to be nice and friendly. But to make an extreme accusation such as that, you wonder why someone comes unhinged?

...they're allowing personal prejudices of the government, as are you to get in the way of the fact this is a military run prison.

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Ack, thats what I get for talking to two people at once. Was replying to you and arguing with someone else. Ignore that part and stick with everything else as it holds a ring of truth to it.

Done and done. :)

Ahh the mind of a pundit.

What it must be like to understand the world in such simple terms of "me right, you wrong." Fortunately the world is not so simple.

In the world we live in an organization can criticize a country and still be unbiased. They can rightfully call Guantanemo the gulag of our time, because that's what it has come to represent.

Our pundit here has taken gulag to be literal, when even a cursory glance at the actual Amnesty International report would reveal that he was using it in a figurative way. Guantanemo very much can be considered the gulag of our time. A place where people are imprisoned for little or no offense, with little or no hope of leaving, where they live in conditions which are below reasonable.

Detainees who have been released from Guantanemo often describe being chained to the floor (BUT THEY'RE BEING TREATED BETTER THAN THEY WERE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY!).

And before anyone decides to look at the facts and so quickly dismiss them and my opinion as being anti-American, I ask you to hear the words of a man who is considered one of our greatest American heroes, Mark Twain.

Mark Twain was also avidly against American imperialism. He was very much an anti-war protestor against the Phillipine war. Here's what he has to say about disagreeing with his countries policy:

"My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for. To be loyal to institutions are extraneous; they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death."

they're allowing personal prejudices of the government

I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. What proof do you have that they have personal prejudices against the government?

What proof do you have that such accusations are outright false?

About interrogation....Do you call sleep deprivation torture? If so, then what is your definition of interrogation? Apparently it's nothing, just to release them even though they're a national security threat - we've met some terrorists twice on the battlefield.

These scumbags don't deserve a trial becuase they're not citizens of the United States. they're not POWs because they don't fight for a nation and don't wear a uniform. Hence, they're classified as "enemy combants".

And if you want to believe your moron buddies in the Senate such as Dick Durbin go ahead. It's just the true mainstream liberal voice today, and it's pushing them further and further away from political power."

I dont know about you...but this sounds like pretty good treatment for someone we are fighting. This is war for Christ's sake! And what do you expect out of interrogationgs and prison, songs about holding hands and skipping through fields of daiseys? And of course there are going to be those zelous US soldiers few who take it to the next level, but they are dealt with accordingly. The last I heard Christine Augilara songs were being used to try to get one inmate to talk... Oh, and by the way, we gave them the Korans, we sure as hell can take them back.

I fully understand where such arguments are produced. They are made in the spleen; not the brain.

Bile and fiery rhetoric do not persuasion make. Anger does not equate to sound policy, nor do comparisons to the very worst terrorist elements of the entire world convince people of Just treatment. Your hatred of others is your concern; I am more concerned with effective policy and justice. Not petty barbaric revenges.

Do you honestly believe anyone benifits from revenge, shame and degredation? How do we, the US, profit from humiliating a few hundred Afgani fundementalists in Cuba? Does this policy do us any good whatsoever, or does it simply slate some need for bloodlust and cruelty?

If some sick person wants to rip the wings off of flies because a misquito bit them; that's their problem. Its not going to do them any good either.

Is it just me, or is this article's whole argument based on "it's not as bad as what they're doing/have done"?

Of course, the entertaining fucking part is the notion that speaking out against the government is fucking "anti-american".

for starters, freedom of speech was enshrined in the damn constitution specifically SO citizens could be vocal in their disagreement with policy in order to ensure that all citizens could be fucking involved in the process.

In other words, there is nothing MORE american than telling the government to fuck off.

And secondly, the past few elections have shown just how closely fucking divided the nation is between Republican and Democrat affiliation. Now, given the pendulum swings a smidge every few years and the power switches parties, the only conclusion I can glean from this farsical fucking assertion is that ALL AMERICAN'S ARE ANTI-AMERICAN....... sometimes.


So, enjoy being pro-american this term, and look cheerfully forward to the day when you are whining about the lastest action by a Democrat in action at which point YOU will be the lousy anti-american traitor.


I must say, the politics of hatefull rhetoric amuses the hell out of me.

Man, talk about retarded.

yeh. Liberating millions. Don't pay attention to the fact that we've killed more Iraqis that Saddam did... civilian Iraqis...



This is not only completely false, its moronic.

http://www.wtoc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3441669

That is an editorial from a Savannah news station, WTOC. They have weekly editorials, but I believe that this one stands out from the rest. Its very eye opening, and it prooves many valid points. I believe that it is a must read for everybody.
I must admit, I haven't read any bullshit as bad since I visited Jim Searcy's site...

This is not only completely false, its moronic.

I think that...even if you took the exagerrated number posted by the Guardian, which was 100,000 or so...No, I forget the number Saddam is credited with killing. If you took the Guardian's ill-conceived number as the truth, I think that statement would be true.

The conservative estimates for Civilian losses due to US intervention remain near the 10,000 mark. Perhaps as much as twice that many may be implied due to unknown dead, those killed without confirmation, mis -or- unidentifiable bodies, etc.

So really, I think the most you could say was 20k; absolute tops. Still no match for Saddam's butchery. That's even if you consider all civilian deaths related to combat to be the US's fault; certainly not the case. So really, Saddam is way in the lead still.

What a bullshit article.

I have read the title to this thread many times over now and I must admit, I have no idea what the hell it means. I understand the editorial and sentiment of the created but the title. . .WTH? Am I just missing something completely?

Unfortunately, people buy into that kind of shit.

Yeah, quoting Jesus is rather popular here in the States for some reason that completely escapes me.

My that's an awfully cynical article. I support Amnesty and I am against some american policies but I don't hate the entire nation and if any organisation is concerened about a prison in a country that does not mean that they are attacking that countrie's president. I think describing America's and Britian's obessions with their own security a "global war" is abit much as although the war on terror is having an international effect it is not like that of the two previous world wars. However I do recognise the authors right to his own opinion however much I may disagree with it.

There are no rules in war.

No! Bad! Stupid! There are rules in war! They are called the [fill-in-name] Convention rules. (I say fill in name because there are more than just the Geneva, it just gets more air time.)

We agreed to those rules, signed the papers, whatever. There are rules in war, and the U.S. has agreed to follow them. That is why we are better than the people who don't follow the rules, and that is why we need to keep following the rules.

There are no rules in war.

Absolutely wrong. There are internationally accepted Rules of Engagement such as;
Don't kill an enemy who is surrendering.
Don't intentionally kill civilian non-combatants, although some may end up dead because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Don't bomb or shoot at hospitals, places of worship, schools, etc.

In addition, every US military member is taught these rules and will be punished if he/she violates them.

In the world we live in an organization can criticize a country and still be unbiased. They can rightfully call Guantanemo the gulag of our time, because that's what it has come to represent.

Only because the left wing and liberal news has painted it that way, not because it is in fact a gulag.

I think that...even if you took the exagerrated number posted by the Guardian, which was 100,000 or so...

a) The guardian is only 'bullshit liberal' by US standards.

b) that's not the largest quote I've heard. There's a site which counts the casualties as best it can. 120 000 I think was the last count I heard.

Of course, the entertaining fucking part is the notion that speaking out against the government is fucking "anti-american".


The use of profanity and other expletives does not enhance your rhetoric; it detracts from what might otherwise be an intelligent post.

Only because the left wing and liberal news has painted it that way, not because it is in fact a gulag.
And AI seems anti-american only because it is painted as such by so-called "liberal" news.

In fact, I stopped reading the article when the guy said that AI was out to get the US administration. I realized right there that this guy didn't know what he was talking about.

And AI seems anti-american only because it is painted as such by so-called "liberal" news.

In fact, I stopped reading the article when the guy said that AI was out to get the US administration. I realized right there that this guy didn't know what he was talking about.

AI admitted on TV they had never been to Gitmo. So where did they get their information? From unbiased people who had been released? How did they arrive at their conclustion?

AI admitted on TV they had never been to Gitmo. So where did they get their information? From unbiased people who had been released? How did they arrive at their conclustion?
and that makes them out to get Bush how?

AI admitted on TV they had never been to Gitmo. So where did they get their information? From unbiased people who had been released? How did they arrive at their conclustion?

What TV have you been watching and where is this on the internet?

and that makes them out to get Bush how?

I never said they were out to get Bush or anyone else. The fact that put out a report and made statements that were not based on credible research and sources makes their report…well…garbage. They knocked the US without any proof, and that is the sad part.

What TV have you been watching and where is this on the internet?

The head of the American branch of AI admitted they had not been there. As I recall it was during an interview with Bill O'Reilly on FOX, but I can't remember which night. If you want to check it out you can probably access the transcript on the web.

It is not the differences (execution, extreme torture etc) which is being commented on in the comparison between Guantanamo and a gulag but the similarities.

"Bush has created what is in effect a gulag. It stretches from prisons in Afghanistan to Iraq, from Guantánamo to secret CIA prisons around the world. There are perhaps 10,000 people being held in Iraq, 1,000 in Afghanistan and almost 700 in Guantánamo, but no one knows the exact numbers. The law as it applies to them is whatever the executive deems necessary. There has been nothing like this system since the fall of the Soviet Union. The US military embraced the Geneva conventions after the second world war, because applying them to prisoners of war protects American soldiers. But the Bush administration, in an internal fight, trumped its argument by designating those at Guantánamo "enemy combatants". Rumsfeld extended this system - "a legal black hole", according to Human Rights Watch - to Afghanistan and then Iraq, openly rejecting the conventions." http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0506-12.htm

"The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law," Ms Khan said. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15411176%255E1702,00.html

The US government has also been criticised for its failure to charge or try prisoners who are classified as enemy combatants, a vague distinction that affords fewer legal protections than prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=113067&Sn=WORL&IssueID=28067

The word "gulag" is harsh but got your attention didn't it? Stopping the government from doing what however remotely resembles a gulag may prevent the US from authentically creating one.

I never said they were out to get Bush or anyone else. The fact that put out a report and made statements that were not based on credible research and sources makes their report…well…garbage. They knocked the US without any proof, and that is the sad part.
So they are anti-american because they have no concrete proof on a story?

At worst, you can say that their story is tedious as it lack proof. To bitch and moan about the anti-american bent of a respected organisation like AI on that fact alone is being extremely narrow-minded.

THAT is why I think the article is rubbish and not worth my time.

And what the hell is this about enemy combatents who would like to kill your family? These are people taken from their homes, or taken from their travels. Atleast the vast majority are



ok.......you obviously dont read much, 558 hearings were given to the people in Guantanamo, 520 were declared "properly classified" meaning that they had a hand in the combat. and for the remaining 38 people 23 were released so yeah. there ya go

this was taken from the Associated Press.....Liz Sidotti wrote it

At worst, you can say that their story is tedious as it lack proof. To bitch and moan about the anti-american bent of a respected organisation like AI on that fact alone is being extremely narrow-minded.


If you want to call them a respected organization that is your prerogative. I do not respect any organization that trashes countries, organizations, or individuals without substantiated and credible information.

If you want to call them a respected organization that is your prerogative. I do not respect any organization that trashes countries, organizations, or individuals without substantiated and credible information.

So, for the record, are you suggesting that AI has done this before? Or that your respect died for them the very instant they published this information about the US? Are you accusing AI of 'trashing' many nations, or just one?

So, for the record, are you suggesting that AI has done this before? Or that your respect died for them the very instant they published this information about the US? Are you accusing AI of 'trashing' many nations, or just one?

I don't know what AI has done in the past nor do I know what they will do in the future. I do know what they have done in this specific instance and it caused me to loose what little respect I did have for them.

The head of the American branch of AI admitted they had not been there. As I recall it was during an interview with Bill O'Reilly on FOX, but I can't remember which night. If you want to check it out you can probably access the transcript on the web.

Sorry but if Bill O'Reilly is your source for information about what the goverment does than you just have to ask yourself what you're doing with your life.

Edit: Upon looking over the internet and on O'Reilly's site I have found no such quote or footage. Thank you for playing, please try again.

I don't know what AI has done in the past nor do I know what they will do in the future. I do know what they have done in this specific instance and it caused me to loose what little respect I did have for them.

Ergo, you are using a single instance without use of proper referencing in past cases to utilize a broad stroke generalization of all past and future actions? And this particular instance was utilized because it was directed against American Administration interests?

How......biased.