NationStates Jolt Archive

So, you're saying that US holdings abroad are in a legal limbo?

This means embassies and consulates.

Puerto Rico has its own constitution and its still considered a US commenwealth. They are not covered by the US constitution. I beleive there are several other territories that are the same way.

Embassies and consulates share the same rights and privilages as any foreign Embassies and Consualtes that are on US soil do. They have to follow some of our laws, and we have to follow some of their laws, on foreign soil. Yeah, there is diplomatic immunity but it is not a certainty.

You are aware that less than 25% of our oil comes from the Middle East?

doent mean that you dont want it.

doent mean that you dont want it.

If we wanted it, we would have taken it in '91

Puerto Rico has its own constitution and its still considered a US commenwealth. They are not covered by the US constitution. I beleive there are several other territories that are the same way.

Embassies and consulates share the same rights and privilages as any foreign Embassies and Consualtes that are on US soil do. They have to follow some of our laws, and we have to follow some of their laws, on foreign soil. Yeah, there is diplomatic immunity but it is not a certainty.

Reid vs. Covert 1957 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=1)
The Supreme Court's decision in Reid v. Covert expressly overturned the rule that the Bill of Rights did not apply abroad.

After the Spanish American war, the Court held that Puerto Rico was "foreign in a domestic sense" and thus only some constitutional provisions applied. The ruling was pithily summed up by then-Secretary of War Elihu Root: "the Constitution indeed follows the flag, but it doesn't quite catch up."

Ok a trial is going to take place, yet that proves nothing as far as guilt of anyone.
No shit. I never said that.
I said that as a case is ongoing, you cannot dismiss it from because 'oh well, nothing has been proven yet'.

Like I said earlier, I wait until the cases are finished with before making my mind up fully.

Interesting that these guys were picked up in Taliban territory where we were engaged in combat, English authorities have also been engaged in their detainment, or did you forget that? Yes, i knew that. In fact, I have followed their case quite closely. Have you?! Because then you'll realise that the case against then (them being Taliban) is unfounded and plain idiotic.

Tell me again what Constitutional rights they are pursuing? Please, I would like to know which ones.
Religious freedom and the infringement of their religous beliefs.

Reid vs. Covert 1957 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=1)
The Supreme Court's decision in Reid v. Covert expressly overturned the rule that the Bill of Rights did not apply abroad.

After the Spanish American war, the Court held that Puerto Rico was "foreign in a domestic sense" and thus only some constitutional provisions applied. The ruling was pithily summed up by then-Secretary of War Elihu Root: "the Constitution indeed follows the flag, but it doesn't quite catch up."

Man, thats way too long to pick and choose what quotes I want to use here to try and back my argument. give me an hour or so to read through all that.

Let me ask this...if they are covered under our Bill of Rights ie Constitution, why do they get their own and why are they still a US Commonwealth?

This shows Bush's utter failure to the American people and to the world. This "man" is the very essence of evil and our generations hilter. He should be tried in a court of law for crimes against humanity. Allowing torture, especially among youths is something that is unforgivable. Terrorists and terrorism against the US would not exsist if not for the secret, illegal actions the US engages in around the world every day. Shame on Bush, shame on US.

so they are not children then judging by you inverted commas
if they are in fact taught from birth then it is those who teach them should be punished-a child is not responsible for what an adult chooses to teach them-we should have sympathy for these 'children' as you call them, not ship them across the world are punish them, they did not ask to to taught the doctrine of hate that the MINORITY of muslims are teaching them.

I agree with you that they don't ask, but it does not change the fact that they have learned it and and they believe it and will act on those beliefs.

This is exactly why the UN denounces children as soldiers, they do not have the facilities to understand. Yet denouncement or not, it does not change the fact that radical Muslim children are being used as soldiers, nor does it change the fact that they are enemies and terrorists.

If we are to treat "children" as having no accountability from an enemy that has no ethics and will use children to fight their war, what keeps that same enemy from making only children their soldiers? What then?

It is no different than drug dealers using 12 year olds to do the deals, it is a cover for the adults because the punishment isn't as harsh. The play is on emotions that "children" aren't capable of atrocities...but they are.

Man, thats way too long to pick and choose what quotes I want to use here to try and back my argument. give me an hour or so to read through all that.

Here, a further one expunding on the 'non-citizen' rights:

U.S. v. Tiede, a U.S. court in occupied Berlin built on Reid's logic, holding that even non-citizens abroad possessed constitutional rights.

This shows Bush's utter failure to the American people and to the world. This "man" is the very essence of evil and our generations hilter. He should be tried in a court of law for crimes against humanity. Allowing torture, especially among youths is something that is unforgivable. Terrorists and terrorism against the US would not exsist if not for the secret, illegal actions the US engages in around the world every day. Shame on Bush, shame on US.

Really, cause terrorism was around longer than Bush...either of them. In fact if you care to crack a history book, its been around longer than the US

Really, cause terrorism was around longer than Bush...either of them. In fact if you care to crack a history book, its been around longer than the US
I was speaking of terrorism directed at the US, not it itself

Let me ask this...if they are covered under our Bill of Rights ie Constitution, why do they get their own and why are they still a US Commonwealth?

PR and Virgin Islands need to be. They are the exception rather then the rule.

PR is effectively a US state but is not afforded full protection under the Bill of Rights- part of the reason PRicans are getting antsy in recent years.

It is commonly acknowledged amonst lawmakers that the 'US Constituiton only applies domestically' is archaic and harks back to pre-1898.
Welcome to the 21st century. ;)

I agree with you that they don't ask, but it does not change the fact that they have learned it and and they believe it and will act on those beliefs.

This is exactly why the UN denounces children as soldiers, they do not have the facilities to understand. Yet denouncement or not, it does not change the fact that radical Muslim children are being used as soldiers, nor does it change the fact that they are enemies and terrorists.

If we are to treat "children" as having no accountability from an enemy that has no ethics and will use children to fight their war, what keeps that same enemy from making only children their soldiers? What then?

It is no different than drug dealers using 12 year olds to do the deals, it is a cover for the adults because the punishment isn't as harsh. The play is on emotions that "children" aren't capable of atrocities...but they are.

I am not claiming children cannot commit atrocities, children can be just as cruel as adults-but are not as responsible for their actions-it is the adultsd who teach them to fight and hate certain people who should be responsible for their crimes.Remember also that many of these children are forced to fight asnd are deeplt traumatised by whaty they are forced to do.This also does not give the us the right to totrture children-IF that is what they are doing.

The vast majority of people in Guantanamó are captured terrorists; not even American citizens, the government has serious reasons for Americans' safety for keeping them there. In 100 years time when documents are declassified and your descendants end up reading that Bush was right and had real and excellent reasons for imprisoning people in Guantanamó, they are going to be quite embarrassed of you.


But that won't happen, because George "congressional medal of failure" Tenets CIA forked a few thousand dollars a head for the people in Guan. and was handed whatever the local yahoos came across.

You want to condem because of a past incident. Should we all assume that English government tortures and forces false confessions simply because they did with the Guildford Four?.

Of course not. There was also the Seven Maguires and the Birmingham Six, the Dublin-monaghan bombings, and cllusion in general.

No.

Military Law, in the United States.... military personnel and also certain civilians during wartime.....Military personnel charged with crimes of a civil nature may be tried by military courts if the crime is service-connected or of military significance, or if it occurs outside the United States or its possessions.
Inmates at Guantanamo are not military personnel, or civilians. We don't know what their legal status is, but we know that they are persons.

Terrorists and terrorism. That has been the declaration from the beginning of this.
You can't be serious. There is no US document declaring war on all terrorists. At least, they seem to be leaving the hundreds of terrorist groups in Africa alone.

Congress declared war, yes beginning with Saddam and his terrorists activities. If you recall, Bush had full backing to go after him as a terrorist.
War was declared on Iraq (some 18 months after the 9/11 attacks), not on terrorism.

What murder of civillians? You are calling casualties of war murder?
You think that every one of the ~50,000 people killed in US wars since 2001 was a terrorist or other legitimate target?

Like those in the towers?
Are you implying that the 9/11 attacks were not an act of mass murder?

So you feel genocide in Iraq was alright to go unchecked?
We're talking about current international terrorism, not Hussein's murderous actions 18 years ago.

We are at war whether you want to believe that or not. Ask the Islamic radicals. They declared the gihad.
1. Islamic radicals in general are not legally recognised.
2. The US has not legally declared war.

This means that you can't drag in military legalities to the debate.

Who is to say these children were not armed at one point. I am almost positive you were not standing there when they were being detained. Where did self defence come into play? Were any military pers. injured or killed in the detaining of these children. Just because you are not in uniform or actually carrying a weapon does not mean you are not a potential soldier.
You said, or rather, it seemed like you were saying, that torturing them was a defensive measure. Even when they were disarmed and incarcerated.

If they're shooting at you, shoot back. But if you've got all the power, then you can't use the self-defence argument.

You sit all comfy in your chair spewing crap
We have something in common then.

Reverse the roles for one day, lose a friend, relative, or loved one and believe me your veiws would be different.
Your emotional arguments are powerless against me. People in emotional distress should not be trusted to make sound judgements.

I don't justify the abuse of children by any means but the media has a was of sensationalizing events to sell papers magazines whatever the case. What they see and hear is changed ten different ways to sell.
Definitely. The government should take over the media. Then we would hear the truth. :rolleyes:

And in ending I leave you with this little item: An Iraqi tennis coach and two of his players were shot to death this week in Baghdad because they were wearing shorts, authorities said Saturday, reporting the latest in a series of recent attacks attributed to Islamic extremists
We're talking about minors caught in Afghanistan in 2001. I don't think that they should be held indefinitely without trial or tortured. Thus, I am a terrorist loving surrender monkey. Right?

Here, a further one expunding on the 'non-citizen' rights:

U.S. v. Tiede, a U.S. court in occupied Berlin built on Reid's logic, holding that even non-citizens abroad possessed constitutional rights.

Those non-citizens were tried in a US court on foreign soil. It did not give them constitutional rights. It gave them certain rights that were deemed acceptable by the Sec of State. The right being a jury trial. Several amendments to the constitution were thrown out.

operation iraqi liberation OIL coincidence i think not
That's also not the name of the Operation. It's Operation Iraqi Freedom.

OMG they're after the OIF!!!

Stop posting. You're contributing nothing useful.

I speak 5 and I teach history.
I am an all-knowing God with a PhD in everything.

I was speaking of terrorism directed at the US, not it itself
gotcha

PR and Virgin Islands need to be. They are the exception rather then the rule.

PR is effectively a US state but is not afforded full protection under the Bill of Rights- part of the reason PRicans are getting antsy in recent years.

It is commonly acknowledged amonst lawmakers that the 'US Constituiton only applies domestically' is archaic and harks back to pre-1898.
Welcome to the 21st century. ;)

Ahh but without an amendment then we are just guessing at the intent of the constitution. Which has been kind of a sticky point for me for a while now.

When the constitution was drafted the original intent was to protect the US from England and The US citizens from its own government. However certain parts are followed to the letter and others are not. I guess that is why we have a supreme court and why our opinions differ.

Its not just on this matter either. There is a whole other debate on protesting at funerals that I dont want to get into again.

I am an all-knowing God with a PhD in everything.

Thank you.

You have helped prove my point that anyone can say they are anything on the internet and no one knows, therefor their opinions are no better than anyone elses.

Those non-citizens were tried in a US court on foreign soil. It did not give them constitutional rights. It gave them certain rights that were deemed acceptable by the Sec of State. The right being a jury trial. Several amendments to the constitution were thrown out.

While non citizens abroad do not necessarily enjoy Constitutional rights, all the time (it is still on a case by case basis), non citizens

"continue to enjoy constitutional rights within U.S. borders, even when here illegally."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030409_raustiala.html

And in ending I leave you with this little item: An Iraqi tennis coach and two of his players were shot to death this week in Baghdad because they were wearing shorts, authorities said Saturday, reporting the latest in a series of recent attacks attributed to Islamic extremists.

And as there weren't Islamists running around Iraq before the US invasion, I wonder whose fault that is?

Please explain to me how a person who is captured while in the act of war against another country is being deprived of his or her civil rights and human dignity by being sent to prison ?.

They are not afforded the same rights as POWs. Rather famously, in fact.

Well, as a friend of mine put it,

'Bush believes that America is the world's moderator. And, unfortunately, until China finishes getting its act together, he's right.'

'Course, whether China will care about human rights abuse at Guantanamo is another matter.

So your assuming that China is going to be this model of human rights the whole world can rally around? When and if China becomes a true world power in the future I believe people are going to go nuts. China is one of the most oppressive types of regimes there is. They get out there and do police actions and start invading countries it will make anything the US has ever done look good. Beware of what you wish for is what I say. Check back to all major wars in the 20th century. There were alot of child prisoners. Specifically Russian and German ones to say the least. The torture allegations are rehashed anti-war/American rehtoric that has been going on since 2002.

Well wait according to the latest report by the lawyers tying to free the detained JUVENILES...or get them charged or whatever...
There are only TWO....
So who is to be believed ...these weasle lawyers or the newspaper dude from the UK ...that claims SIXTY children are being held... ??????
http://www.glphr.org/guantanamo/
It seems like you have misunderstood.
The 60 figure (in the linked to text in the OP) refers to detainees who were under 18 when taken to Guantanomo Bay - I dont know if you read the artical we are discussing or not but it doesnt state that there are currently 60 under 18's in Gitmo, rather it refers to detainees who were under 18 when they arrived.

The figure (in the artical) is cited as being an estimate arrived at by London Lawyers:

The US Department of Defence released a list (that the lawyers claim is highly erroneous) of detainees, the lawyers contend that they can confirm (from the list) 17 detainees who were under 18 when taken to Gitmo and can identify a further 7 who were probably juveniles.

Mr Stafford (who I gather is one of the London lawyers who arrived at the estimate) claims credible evidence (derived from detainees, lawyers and the International Red Cross) of a further (additional to those derived from the DoD list) 37 detainees who were under 18 when taken.

Evidently where exactly is this 'most recent report' you refer to, because I followed the link and the only date on the page is 2004 - the most recent news posting on the entire web site is from back in April, a date that predates the realease of the information that the latest allegations detailed in the Independent relate to (aka the US DoD list)...
Of course perhaps it's silly of me to think it might be relevent, but do ya think the fact that the information refered to in the Independent artical hadnt been released when the info was posted to page you directed us to might have some bearing on the differing conclusions reached in the two reports....?

Wow - this reminds me of the whole "Mr. T ate my balls fad" - The Taker Troll ate my thread....

By breaking our own rules, we have dishonored the memories of those who died to help establish them.

True, true, all too true...
:) :( :mad: :headbang:

I think reading this thread damaged my brain.

I got to about page 7, and gave up. People choose to be blind, deaf, and dumb, and we can do little to help them.

Regardless of whether CHILDREN are being tortured (which is most likely true), we have SPECIFICALLY come out and said "WE DO NOT TORTURE PEOPLE. WE ARE AGAINST TORTURE." We've even passed legislation on it, recently!

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE CHILDREN. NOTHING WILL CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SAID WE DON'T TORTURE PEOPLE. NOTHING! Not them being terrorists, being guilty, being children, being armed, being angry, NOTHING! If they are being tortured FOR WHATEVER REASON AT ALL, then the United States has LIED. YET AGAIN.




GOD. People need to stop being stupid.

Reading this whole thread has accomplished 2 things.

1) I'm incredibly agitated.

2) http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/CENSORED.jpg!

I'm british and well let's face it we all h8 guantanamo but this is a conspiracy theory pure and simple.

they are only children...like the ones in Darfur...the ones with the machetes cutting peoples heads off? but because these particular " children " were involved in acts of war against the US its ok ...they need special treatment.
"Feel sorry for the US please"... Give me a break from your self-pity. Those CHILDREN cutting heads off in Darfur need as much special treatment: yes they do. CHILDREN should not be punished for wars they didn't start. CHILDREN have been forced many times to participate in wars. Even when they aren't forced, they are influenced and CHILDREN are easy to manipulate....

I got to about page 7, and gave up. People choose to be blind, deaf, and dumb, and we can do little to help them.

Regardless of whether CHILDREN are being tortured (which is most likely true), we have SPECIFICALLY come out and said "WE DO NOT TORTURE PEOPLE. WE ARE AGAINST TORTURE." We've even passed legislation on it, recently!

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE CHILDREN. NOTHING WILL CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SAID WE DON'T TORTURE PEOPLE. NOTHING! Not them being terrorists, being guilty, being children, being armed, being angry, NOTHING! If they are being tortured FOR WHATEVER REASON AT ALL, then the United States has LIED. YET AGAIN.




GOD. People need to stop being stupid.

Tell me what you believe constitutes torture?

I don't believe in torture, but I don't believe prisoners are entitled to a five star hotel and gourmet meals either.

"Feel sorry for the US please"... Give me a break from your self-pity. Those CHILDREN cutting heads off in Darfur need as much special treatment: yes they do. CHILDREN should not be punished for wars they didn't start. CHILDREN have been forced many times to participate in wars. Even when they aren't forced, they are influenced and CHILDREN are easy to manipulate....

So if a child burns your house down or kills your parent, that's ok because they are a child and were manipulated?? You seem to think children don't have any brains at all.

So your assuming that China is going to be this model of human rights the whole world can rally around? When and if China becomes a true world power in the future I believe people are going to go nuts. China is one of the most oppressive types of regimes there is. They get out there and do police actions and start invading countries it will make anything the US has ever done look good. Beware of what you wish for is what I say. Check back to all major wars in the 20th century. There were alot of child prisoners. Specifically Russian and German ones to say the least. The torture allegations are rehashed anti-war/American rehtoric that has been going on since 2002.It's funny that you got that out of that post. When I read:
'Course, whether China will care about human rights abuse at Guantanamo is another matter.it means something in the direction of China not caring about human rights to me and not that China will be a beacon of humanity.

So if a child burns your house down or kills your parent, that's ok because they are a child and were manipulated?? You seem to think children don't have any brains at all.If they were kept on drugs and brainwashed thoroughly, it would speak in favor of a milder punishment.

If they were kept on drugs and brainwashed thoroughly, it would speak in favor of a milder punishment.

I would agree with you, if that were the case. But I would also add that would simply require a different type of detention, but detention none the less.

So if a child burns your house down or kills your parent, that's ok because they are a child and were manipulated?? You seem to think children don't have any brains at all.

Ill quote a German Adult talking about his time fighting to protech Berlin when he was in the Hitler Youth:

I was just a frieghtened child.

Have alittle compassion next time.

So if a child burns your house down or kills your parent, that's ok because they are a child and were manipulated?? You seem to think children don't have any brains at all.
If a child has been brought up in the middle of poverty by fundamentalists, brainwashed with hate words and given a gun by adults, and then burns my house AND kills my mum, I would ask to talk to that child and understand why she did it. I would not support its imprisonment without trial or it's torture or execution EVER.

Ill quote a German Adult talking about his time fighting to protech Berlin when he was in the Hitler Youth:

I was just a frieghtened child.

Have alittle compassion next time.

I am not saying they are not frightened children, I am saying they are still a threat frightened children or not.

Tell me, how many Al Queda children have been put to death for not wanting to be terrorists or standing up to the authority of the Taliban?

That was a very real fear of the Hitler youth, is it for children who are terrorists?

If a child has been brought up in the middle of poverty by fundamentalists, brainwashed with hate words and given a gun by adults, and then burns my house AND kills my mum, I would ask to talk to that child and understand why she did it. I would not support its imprisonment without trial or it's torture or execution EVER.

You understand it now, you just don't want to believe it. You are an infidel, your destruction is their salvation. What more do you think you are going to get from "understanding why"?

You understand it now, you just don't want to believe it. You are an infidel, your destruction is their salvation. What more do you think you are going to get from "understanding why"?
BULLSHIT. If that was Al Qaeda's main target (Christianity), Osama would have attacked the Vatican, not the twin towers... Don't you bring up religion because this is not a war about religious values, however much Mr. Bush and Mr. Osama may wish it to be...

I am not saying they are not frightened children, I am saying they are still a threat frightened children or not.

Tell me, how many Al Queda children have been put to death for not wanting to be terrorists or standing up to the authority of the Taliban?

That was a very real fear of the Hitler youth, is it for children who are terrorists?

Yes it is actually, not offically, but in the Community, refusing to fight for Allah is pretty suicidal (I'm talking about the fundementals here). And, what good does keeping them locked up in a hell hole do? All it does is proove America is bad and worth fighting against.

We should be showing our Enemies the best of our Cillivisation, not the worst.

BULLSHIT. If that was Al Qaeda's main target (Christianity), Osama would have attacked the Vatican, not the twin towers... Don't you bring up religion because this is not a war about religious values, however much Mr. Bush and Mr. Osama may wish it to be...

They brought up religion. They declared a jihad.

What you seem to be missing, is the hatred for western civilzations. You understand completely the poverty and the fundamental brainwashing completely. But it seems you don't grasp the fact that education is a threat, equalizing people is a threat to Al Queda.

If these same children were educated, given a chance to prosper their minds would never embrace terrorism on the feed of salvation. We all know this, and so do those running Al Queda and terrorism. They prey on the uneducated, those that have nothing and are looking for any answers to their misery.

Instead of taking the funds of one of the world's most valuable commodities and investing it into their own people, they have worked to keep them brainwashed, it is how they garner their support. Western civilization and ideas such as equal rights threatens that very hold.

That very ignorance which has been perpetuated keeps them in volunteers for terrorist activities, keeps them uncivilized. Do you truly believe there has been no intent to do that by those that head up terrorism?? And please note, terrorists serve voluntarily, they are not forced to do so. If they were then all Islamics would be terrorists.

Wow - this reminds me of the whole "Mr. T ate my balls fad" - The Taker Troll ate my thread....



True, true, all too true...
:) :( :mad: :headbang:

Since I don't believe what you do, I am a troll?

Great. No crossing my bridges without payment.

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece

What's the problem? If this is an issue than why is Alqaeda recruiting them at such a young age?

Blame the recruiter, not the Mil.

:rolleyes:

What's the problem? If this is an issue than why is Alqaeda recruiting them at such a young age?

Blame the recruiter, not the Mil.

:rolleyes:

Or Blame Both.

What's the problem? If this is an issue than why is Alqaeda recruiting them at such a young age?

Blame the recruiter, not the Mil.

:rolleyes:
You missed the point DM... Blame the recruiter, not the child.

You missed the point DM... Blame the recruiter, not the child.

It's too late for that now. Shouldn'ta picked up arms against Americans.



I always miss the openings of the threads because I'm sleeping and the rest of you guys are on the other side of the world.....stupid timezones!!

Thank you.

You have helped prove my point that anyone can say they are anything on the internet and no one knows, therefor their opinions are no better than anyone elses.
I'm serious. I know everything.

I am not saying they are not frightened children, I am saying they are still a threat frightened children or not.

Tell me, how many Al Queda children have been put to death for not wanting to be terrorists or standing up to the authority of the Taliban?

That was a very real fear of the Hitler youth, is it for children who are terrorists?
Assume they are a terrible threat. They still are frightened children and are not culpable. Does being a threat require that they be detained in an interogation centre with harsh conditions, no attempt whatsoever to see if they can be (much less to actually achieve) salvaged?
Does their helplessness and lack of choice in their circumstance make them deserve the harsh conditions and treatment - even without the mitigation of the suffering that is already theirs' even if it isnt possible to undo the damage and alleviate the suffering do they deserve yet more unimaginable hardship?

I dont think so.

That such a child is a threat warrents containment of the threat. That they are a child, had no ability to prevent their cirumstance (so are not at fault for it), that they have suffered, that it might even be possible to alleviate their suffering (and certainly is possible to contribute much less to their further suffering) to some extent, that it could even (far-fetched though it may be) be possible to salvage them, all these things warrent that they not be detained in an integation detention facility, but rather be remanded in custody in circumstances that contain their ability to convert their potential threat into actual harm, and as far as possible seek to alleviate and address their suffering and add whatever possible 'quality of life' might still be within their potential. If they can be salvaged so they cease to present a threat, then this should be a priority, if not then the priority ought to be to minimise their suffering and maximise their 'quality of life' within the strictures of the necessary custody they must be remanded into.

They dont deserve more hell on earth and suffering. They are kids who have already had it far worse than I can bear to dwell on - they shouldnt be in that horrible place, they shouldnt be in the direct custody of people who are trained to 'handle' and 'extract information' from adult prisoners of war. They ought to be given the care and help they need throughout their custodial 'stay' be it temporary or in worst cases permenant.

It's too late for that now. Shouldn'ta picked up arms against Americans.
You just contradicted yourself...

Well, as a friend of mine put it,

'Bush believes that America is the world's moderator. And, unfortunately, until China finishes getting its act together, he's right.'

'Course, whether China will care about human rights abuse at Guantanamo is another matter.
China is the country that uses Child Labor to make shoes in 90 degree heat inside a factory you know. While some don't consider that Torture it's pretty cruel.

But I am saddened by this fact, but it's just as sad that these kids were trained to kill to begin with.

Tell me what you believe constitutes torture?

Whatever it is, the practices in Guantanamo Bay go below normal US treatment of detainees and prisoners. If the US had only treated them in a more normal fashion, then nobody would kick up a fuss.

What you seem to be missing, is the hatred for western civilzations. You understand completely the poverty and the fundamental brainwashing completely. But it seems you don't grasp the fact that education is a threat, equalizing people is a threat to Al Queda.

If these same children were educated, given a chance to prosper their minds would never embrace terrorism on the feed of salvation. We all know this, and so do those running Al Queda and terrorism. They prey on the uneducated, those that have nothing and are looking for any answers to their misery.
I agree. As Voltaire said, those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

What's the problem? If this is an issue than why is Alqaeda recruiting them at such a young age?

Blame the recruiter, not the Mil.

:rolleyes:
The US is responsible for US actions. Al-Qaeda is not.

Also, get real. Nobody is supportive of Al-Qaeda recruiting children. Or even supportive of Al-Qaeda in general.

It's too late for that now. Shouldn'ta picked up arms against Americans.
Like everyone else I agree that Al-Qaeda should not have attacked the USA. But the US government does not have a right use that fact to justify doing absolutely anything it likes. It is constrained by its own laws and by international law.

Firstly, most of these 14 year olds are not "frightened children" in the bedwetting teddy hugging way that people on this forum seem to be advocating. Most of them that have grown up in conditions of extreme hardship will have undergone a very different type of life than we here would experience in the west and are forced to grow up very quickly. If we broaden the debate outside the parameters of terrorism for a moment and look at the manner in which so many children in sub-Saharan Africa contribute to their families wellbeing I'd be willing to bet that most of these 14 year olds have experience that belies their years and would be far less afraid to pick up a gun than the vast majority of the posters on this forum irrespective of age.

Now I think Guantanamo is a travesty of justice and do not support torture or detainment without trial so I don't want to get into that. What I will say though is that whilst I can understand why these children have become the way they are - the bottom line is that is now WHO they are. We do not excuse sexual predators or serial killers because the majority of them were abused as a child. Likewise in this case it's important to draw a big fat line between understanding and condoning. I feel sorry that these children are the way they are, but the vast majority of them are on the cusp of adulthood and are not going to change their views just because you give them a hug and buy them a happy meal.

Whatever it is, the practices in Guantanamo Bay go below normal US treatment of detainees and prisoners. If the US had only treated them in a more normal fashion, then nobody would kick up a fuss.


I agree. As Voltaire said, those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.


The US is responsible for US actions. Al-Qaeda is not.

Also, get real. Nobody is supportive of Al-Qaeda recruiting children. Or even supportive of Al-Qaeda in general.


Like everyone else I agree that Al-Qaeda should not have attacked the USA. But the US government does not have a right use that fact to justify doing absolutely anything it likes. It is constrained by its own laws and by international law.

Alqaeda isn't responsible for it's actions? The WOT is evidence to the stupidity of that statement. We're holding alqaeda responsible for it's actions.

They're enemy combatants. They certainly never showed any regard for the Geneva convention on 9/11, and since they aren't fighting under a nation's flag, they're criminals.

AFAIC, they've got access to the Red cross in Gitmo. Some of them have been through military tribunals already, some have been released (:rolleyes: ) , some have been kept.

No child should be in prison with adult prisoners. No child (or adult for that matter) should be tortured. I can think of a very limited amount of circumstances to condone torture. Really, what is there to argue about here? We're freaked out about terrorists, we're doing very stupid things and if the military feels the need to detain children, they should at least be kept in seperate facilities and be monitored by an organization such as Amnesty International or Red Cross.

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece
I wanna know where you get 'torturing innocents' out of the article. The only torture it references is part of the alleged 'torture' that went on there. Not to mention that the ones that were anywhere close to 18 would have been hard to identify as minors, especially given the probable lack of identification and birth certificates. And wasn't this known for a while? I remember an interview awhile back that mentioned them, and how the ones that were talked to didn't complain and in fact some commented on how they liked it. Not the ones that were in solitary obviously, but the rest.

No child should be in prison with adult prisoners. No child (or adult for that matter) should be tortured. I can think of a very limited amount of circumstances to condone torture. Really, what is there to argue about here? We're freaked out about terrorists, we're doing very stupid things and if the military feels the need to detain children, they should at least be kept in seperate facilities and be monitored by an organization such as Amnesty International or Red Cross.

They are isolated and have not been kept in the general population, that was for their own safety.

One thing seems to be missed here is under the Geneva convention, children are only under age 15. Muslim law in many countries considers an adult 14, including subject to criminal code within those countries that have Muslim law as part of their legal system. Employment and marriage also fall into age 14. So let's not forget we cannot equate "children" to western laws that do not recognize a 14 year old as an adult, when Muslim law does.

Bush, sucks and needs to go, I said that many times, though. Hillarry 2008 for president!!!!!!

They are isolated and have not been kept in the general population, that was for their own safety.

One thing seems to be missed here is under the Geneva convention, children are only under age 15. Muslim law in many countries considers an adult 14, including subject to criminal code within those countries that have Muslim law as part of their legal system. Employment and marriage also fall into age 14. So let's not forget we cannot equate "children" to western laws that do not recognize a 14 year old as an adult, when Muslim law does.
And they are being visited by organizations such as the Red Cross or Amnesty International? Solitary Confinement isn't really a nice way to seperate the men from the children. And we follow our own laws, there should be no reason to amend them due to another countries customs.

I wanna know where you get 'torturing innocents' out of the article. The only torture it references is part of the alleged 'torture' that went on there. Not to mention that the ones that were anywhere close to 18 would have been hard to identify as minors, especially given the probable lack of identification and birth certificates. And wasn't this known for a while? I remember an interview awhile back that mentioned them, and how the ones that were talked to didn't complain and in fact some commented on how they liked it. Not the ones that were in solitary obviously, but the rest.
I wish this was a Bush quote.

Alqaeda isn't responsible for it's actions? The WOT is evidence to the stupidity of that statement. We're holding alqaeda responsible for it's actions.
No, I meant to say that the US is responsible for US actions. Al-Qaeda is not responsible for US actions. Al-Qaeda is responsible for Al-Qaeda actions.

They're enemy combatants. They certainly never showed any regard for the Geneva convention on 9/11, and since they aren't fighting under a nation's flag, they're criminals.
They have not been proven guilty. In most cases, nobody's even trying to prove them guilty. They're just pointlessly languishing in that prison, absorbing resources.

We can't even claim that the inmates of Guantanamo Bay are associated with Al-Qaeda, or were combatants of any description.

AFAIC, they've got access to the Red cross in Gitmo. Some of them have been through military tribunals already, some have been released (:rolleyes: ) , some have been kept.
Those who are still there should be charged with crimes or released.

And they are being visited by organizations such as the Red Cross or Amnesty International? And we follow our own laws, there should be no reason to amend them due to another countries customs.

No one said amend anything. What I saying is those countries recruiting 14 and 15 year old soldiers are doing so within thier laws (based in Muslim law) because they consider them adults. The Geneva convention has said 14 is not an adult, but 15 is an adult and can be qualified as a soldier by a nation.

Western civilizations do not recognize 14 or 15 as an adult, so many here tend to apply our laws to these "children" who are deemed adults by their own countries.

Frankly I think they are using our own laws when it is convenient to them. Terrorist nations are fine with counting a 14 year old as an adult, and in fact teach that in their religion, and here we come saying they are not...and there they go embracing what we say when it is convenient.

Point is, at 14 they themselves consider themselves adults under full sanction of their own countries and docterines. We aren't dealing with "kids" as we know them.

Tell me what you believe constitutes torture?

I don't believe in torture, but I don't believe prisoners are entitled to a five star hotel and gourmet meals either.

You completely missed my point entirely.

It doesn't matter if they should or should not be tortured, or what constitutes torture - the fact is, we've said we DON'T torture people! Time and time again! So are you accepting the fact that the United States has lied to the world again or do you just not think they have tortured anyone at all?

You completely missed my point entirely.

It doesn't matter if they should or should not be tortured, or what constitutes torture - the fact is, we've said we DON'T torture people! Time and time again! So are you accepting the fact that the United States has lied to the world again or do you just not think they have tortured anyone at all?

I didn't miss the point at all, you didn't answer the question.

I personally don't feel putting a dog collar on someone is torture. I do feel hooking a car battery to their genitals is. These days people want to call anything that is slightly uncomfortable torture, I don't buy it. While I don't necessarily approve of humiliation, if a person considers a dog collar around their neck torture I am genuinely suprised they have the stomach to be a terrorist. I think it is convenient to call such things torture. So again what do you consider torture?

No one said amend anything. What I saying is those countries recruiting 14 and 15 year old soldiers are doing so within thier laws (based in Muslim law) because they consider them adults. The Geneva convention has said 14 is not an adult, but 15 is an adult and can be qualified as a soldier by a nation.

Western civilizations do not recognize 14 or 15 as an adult, so many here tend to apply our laws to these "children" who are deemed adults by their own countries.

Frankly I think they are using our own laws when it is convenient to them. Terrorist nations are fine with counting a 14 year old as an adult, and in fact teach that in their religion, and here we come saying they are not...and there they go embracing what we say when it is convenient.

Point is, at 14 they themselves consider themselves adults under full sanction of their own countries and docterines. We aren't dealing with "kids" as we know them.
Either you are a child or you are not. I think I was actually more mature when I was 14 than I am now. Also, I'm not saying that children cannot be dangerous. I don't agree with the war, I don't agree with what we're doing at Guantanamo. But that is a different arguement. There should be no reason to allow exceptions to our laws. There is no reason to treat a minor as you would an adult. That doesn't mean we should open the door and give them a rocket launcher and a piece of hard candy on the way out. Solitary confinement is a form of torture. If that is all that was done to them, that is still torture. There is absolutely no reason at all, under any circumstances to torture a minor. Killing them when your own life is on the line is a different circumstance and not related to a person already behind bars. The proper organizations should know where these children are, how they are being treated and if they are being represented properly if they ever face charges.

I don't think what I'm saying is unfair or lenient to so called terrorists.

I didn't miss the point at all, you didn't answer the question.

I personally don't feel putting a dog collar on someone is torture. I do feel hooking a car battery to their genitals is. These days people want to call anything that is slightly uncomfortable torture, I don't buy it. While I don't necessarily approve of humiliation, if a person considers a dog collar around their neck torture I am genuinely suprised they have the stomach to be a terrorist. I think it is convenient to call such things torture. So again what do you consider torture?

Beating them, among other things that would qualify for "humiliation", but to an extreme that shouldn't happen (rubbing their faces in their own shit, for example)

Either you are a child or you are not. I think I was actually more mature when I was 14 than I am now. Also, I'm not saying that children cannot be dangerous. I don't agree with the war, I don't agree with what we're doing at Guantanamo. But that is a different arguement. There should be no reason to allow exceptions to our laws. There is no reason to treat a minor as you would an adult. That doesn't mean we should open the door and give them a rocket launcher and a piece of hard candy on the way out. Solitary confinement is a form of torture. If that is all that was done to them, that is still torture. There is absolutely no reason at all, under any circumstances to torture a minor. Killing them when your own life is on the line is a different circumstance and not related to a person already behind bars. The proper organizations should know where these children are, how they are being treated and if they are being represented properly if they ever face charges.

I don't think what I'm saying is unfair or lenient to so called terrorists.

And what are YOU considering a minor? In what realm? There is no either you are a child or you are not, considering the backgrounds of these 'children' is a must. Seperating them from the general population is a western custom, we recognize juvenile offenders. In their own societies they would not be recognized as anything other than what they are considered...an adult.

Solitary confinement is not torture. It is an effort to keep them from being even more indocterinated by the "adults" (again western beliefs they are not adults). You can't have it both ways.

Beating them, among other things that would qualify for "humiliation", but to an extreme that shouldn't happen (rubbing their faces in their own shit, for example)

I agree, so now show me where it is proven that this is going on. Not speculation, and not "he said it happened" but proof.

And what are YOU considering a minor? In what realm? There is no either you are a child or you are not, considering the backgrounds of these 'children' is a must. Seperating them from the general population is a western custom, we recognize juvenile offenders. In their own societies they would not be recognized as anything other than what they are considered...an adult.

Solitary confinement is not torture. It is an effort to keep them from being even more indocterinated by the "adults" (again western beliefs they are not adults). You can't have it both ways.
17 and under would be my definition of a minor. And I'm having it only one way. You're the one merging two different cultures. Solitary confinement is a form of torture.

Because while those people are there, no planes have been flown into any buildings that I can think of.

Irrelevant straw man Comrade Bushevik. Almost all of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabs. Not Afghanis, not Iraqis. Saudi Arabs. From the same country that Bush likes to kiss up to for oil.

:rolleyes:

17 and under would be my definition of a minor. And I'm having it only one way. You're the one merging two different cultures. Solitary confinement is a form of torture.

No solitary confinement is not torture. It is used in all penal systems, legally. That is your opinon, but not a fact.

Also your opinon that 17 and under would define a minor, when in fact it does not internationally. And we are discussing international practices.

Our western reporters and such inflame our society's sense of justice by claiming they are minor's when in fact under their own laws they are not, nor are 15 year old soldiers under the Geneva Convention. Something reporters never seem to mention. The GC advises that 18 year old is preferable but has no mandate requiring it.

Not that we are even discussing those that follow the Geneva Convention, we are expected to but where is the howl for those that are using 14 and 15 year old soldiers to begin with?? Their own mindset is that they are adults and they are soldiers, who are we to deny them that?? You want to insult them more by telling them they aren't "old" enough to be soldiers??

No solitary confinement is not torture. It is used in all penal systems, legally. That is your opinon, but not a fact.

Also your opinon that 17 and under would define a minor, when in fact it does not internationally. And we are discussing international practices.

Our western reporters and such inflame our society's sense of justice by claiming they are minor's when in fact under their own laws they are not, nor are 15 year old soldiers under the Geneva Convention. Something reporters never seem to mention. The GC advises that 18 year old is preferable but has no mandate requiring it.

Not that we are even discussing those that follow the Geneva Convention, we are expected to but where is the howl for those that are using 14 and 15 year old soldiers to begin with?? Their own mindset is that they are adults and they are soldiers, who are we to deny them that?? You want to insult them more by telling them they aren't "old" enough to be soldiers??
Many injustices are legal. Torture isn't defined by how legal it is.

Yes, I would go so far as to insult them. You, however, would go so far as to torture them.

"How does one go about articulating desperation to another who is not desperate? How does one go about articulating the psychological stress of knowing that people are waiting for me to self-destruct? I did not do anything to deserve this."
--Isolation prisoner, Ojore Nuru Lutalo

Something that might provide interesting reading:
http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf

Many injustices are legal. Torture isn't defined by how legal it is.

Yes, I would go so far as to insult them. You, however, would go so far as to torture them.

"How does one go about articulating desperation to another who is not desperate? How does one go about articulating the psychological stress of knowing that people are waiting for me to self-destruct? I did not do anything to deserve this."
--Isolation prisoner, Ojore Nuru Lutalo

I have never once in this said I would torture them. I have addressed the cry that they are children, which is what the article addressed the OP posted.

Before you assume you understand anything I have an opinion on, why not read and comprehend it. Please point out where I said it was ok to torture children, or anyone.

If solitary confinement is torture then I suppose any parent to who sends their child to their room to stay for the day is torturing them?

Isolation, is a form of punishment but also a form of safety in the penal system. The child molester who is at risk of being killed by the general population of a prison is often put in solitary confinement for his own protection. Would you have him put in the general population instead? Would you have "children" (young boys) put in the general population of detainees?

I sure as hell am abandoning GWB for that.

For all of you that are having a henny penny about these "children" where is your outrage for how they ended up being here to begin with?

The Emotional Life of Nations
by Lloyd deMause

Chapter 3--The Childhood Origins of Terrorism

"He who washes my body around my genitals should wear gloves so that I am not touched there."

--Will of Mohammed Atta

Because so much of the world outside the West has for historical reasons fallen behind in the evolution of their childrearing modes, the resulting vast differences between national personality types has recently turned into a global battle of terrorism against liberal Western values. In order to understand this new battle, it would be useful to know what makes a terrorist—what developmental life histories they share that can help us see why they want to kill "American infidels" and themselves—so we can apply our efforts to removing the sources of their violence and preventing terrorism in the future. The roots of current terrorist attacks lie, I believe, not in this or that American foreign policy error but in the extremely abusive families of the terrorists. Children who grow up to be Islamic terrorists are products of a misogynist fundamentalist system that often segregates the family into two separate areas: the men's area and the woman's area, where the children are brought up and which the father rarely visits.1 Even in countries like Saudi Arabia today, women by law cannot mix with unrelated men, and public places still have separate women's areas in restaurants and work places, because, as one Muslim sociologist put it bluntly: "In our society there is no relationship of friendship between a man and a woman."2 Families that produce the most terrorists are the most violently misogynist; in Afghanistan, for instance, girls cannot attend schools and women who try to hold jobs or who seem to "walk with pride" are shot.3

Young girls are treated abominably in most fundamentalist families. When a boy is born, the family rejoices; when a girl is born, the whole family mourns.4 The girl's sexuality is so hated that when she is five or so the women grab her, pin her down, and chop off her clitoris and often her labia with a razor blade or piece of glass, ignoring her agony and screams for help, because, they say, her clitoris is "dirty," "ugly," "poisonous," "can cause a voracious appetite for promiscuous sex," and "might render men impotent."5 The area is then often sewed up to prevent intercourse, leaving only a tiny hole for urination. The genital mutilation is excruciatingly painful. Up to a third die from infections, mutilated women must "shuffle slowly and painfully" and usually are unable to orgasm.6 Over 130 million genitally mutilated women are estimated to live today in Islamic nations, from Somali, Nigeria and Sudan to Egypt, Ethiopia, and Pakistan. A recent survey of Egyptian girls and women, for instance, showed 97 percent of uneducated families and 66 percent of educated families still practicing female genital mutilation.7 Although some areas have mostly given up the practice, in others—like Sudan and Uganda—it is increasing, with 90% of the women surveyed saying they planned to circumcise all of their daughters.8

The mutilation is not required by the Qu´an; Mohammad, in fact, said girls should be treated even better than boys.9 Yet the women have inflicted upon their daughters for millennia the horrors done to them, re-enacting the abuse men inflict on them as they mutilate their daughters while joyfully chanting songs such as this:


"We used to be friends, but today I am the master, for I am a man. Look—I have the knife in my hand…Your clitoris, I will cut it off and throw it away for today I am a man."10

As the girls grow up in these fundamentalist families, they are usually treated as though they were polluted beings, veiled, and sometimes gang-raped when men outside the family wish to settle scores with men in her family.11 Studies such as a recent survey of Palestinian students show that the sexual abuse of girls is far higher in Islamic societies than elsewhere, with a large majority of all girls reporting that they had been sexually molested as children.12 Even marriage can be considered rape, since the family often chooses the partner and the girl is as young as eight.13 The girl is often blamed for her rape, since it is assumed that "those who don't ask to be raped will never be raped."14 Wife-beating is common and divorce by wives rare—in fact, women have been killed by their families simply because they asked for a divorce.15 It is no wonder that Physicians for Human Rights found, for instance, that "97 percent of Afghan women they surveyed suffered from severe depression."16

It is not surprising that these mutilated, battered women make less than ideal mothers, reinflicting their own miseries upon their children. Visitors to families throughout fundamentalist Muslim societies report on the "slapping, striking, whipping and thrashing" of children, with constant shaming and humiliation, often being told by their mothers that they are "cowards" if they don't hit others.17 Physical abuse of children is continuous; as the Pakistani Conference on Child Abuse reports:


A large number of children face some form of physical abuse, from infanticide and abandonment of babies, to beating, shaking, burning, cutting, poisoning, holding under water or giving drugs or alcohol, or violent acts like punching, kicking, biting, choking, beating, shooting or stabbing…18

Islamic schools regularly practice corporal punishment—particularly the religious schools from which terrorist volunteers so often come—chaining up their students for days "in dark rooms with little food and hardly any sanitation."19 Sexual abuse—described as including "fondling of genitals, coercing a child to fondle the abuser's genitals, masturbation with the child as either participant or observer, oral sex, anal or vaginal penetration by penis, finger or any other object and [child] prostitution"—is extensive, though impossible to quantify.20 Even mothers have been reported as often "rubbing the penis [of their boys] long and energetically to increase its size."21 According to the recent survey of Palestinian students, boys report having been used sexually even more often than girls—men choosing to rape little boys anally to avoid what they consider the "voracious vaginas" of women.22 In some areas, children are reported to have marks all over their bodies from being burned by their parents with red-hot irons or pins as punishment or to cure being possessed by demons.23 Children are taught strict obedience to all parental commands, stand when their parents enter the room, kiss their hands, don't laugh "excessively," fear them immensely, and learn that giving in to any of their own needs or desires is horribly sinful.24 All these childrearing practices are very much like those that were routinely inflicted upon children in the medieval West.25

The ascetic results of such punitive upbringings are predictable. When these abused children grow up, they feel that every time they try to self-activate, every time they do something independently for themselves, they will lose the approval of the parents in their heads—mainly their mothers and grandmothers in the women's quarters. When their cities were flooded with oil money and Western popular culture in recent decades, fundamentalist men were first attracted to the new freedoms and pleasures, but soon retreated, feeling they would lose their mommy's approval and be "Bad Boys." Westerners came to represent their own "Bad Boy" self in projection, and had to be killed off, as they felt they themselves deserved, for such unforgivable sins as listening to music, flying kites and enjoying sex.26 As one fundamentalist put it, "America is Godless. Western influence here is not a good thing, our people can see CNN, MTV, kissing…"27 Another described his motives thusly: "We will destroy American cities piece by piece because your life style is so objectionable to us, your pornographic movies and TV."28 Many agree with the Iranian Ministry of Culture that all American television programs "are part of an extensive plot to wipe out our religious and sacred values,"29 and for this reason feel they must kill Americans. Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual father of Islamic terrorism, describes how he turned against the West as he once watched a church dance while visiting America:


"Every young man took the hand of a young woman. And these were the young men and women who had just been singing their hymns! The room became a confusion of feet and legs: arms twisted around hips; lips met lips; chests pressed together."30

Osama bin Laden himself "while in college frequented flashy nightclubs, casinos and bars [and] was a drinker and womanizer," but soon felt extreme guilt for his sins and began preaching killing Westerners for their freedoms and their sinful enticements of Muslims.31 Most of the Taliban leaders, in fact, are wealthy, like bin Laden, have had contact with the West, and were shocked into their terrorist violence by "the personal freedoms and affluence of the average citizen, by the promiscuity, and by the alcohol and drug use of Western youth …only an absolute and unconditional return to the fold of conservative Islamism could protect the Muslim world from the inherent dangers and sins of the West."32 Bin Laden left his life of pleasures, and has lived with his four wives and fifteen children in a small cave with no running water, waging a holy war against all those who enjoy sinful activities and freedoms that he cannot allow in himself.

From childhood, then, Islamist terrorists have been taught to kill the part of themselves—and, by projection, others—that is selfish and wants personal pleasures and freedoms. It is in the terror-filled homes—not just later in the terrorist training camps—that they first learn to be martyrs and to "die for Allah." When the terrorist suicidal bombers who were prevented from carrying out their acts were interviewed on TV, they said they felt "ecstatic" as they pushed the button.33 They denied being motivated by the virgins and other enticements supposedly awaiting them in Paradise. Instead, they said they wanted to die to join Allah—to get the love they never got. Mothers of martyrs are reported as happy that they die. One mother of a Palestinian suicide bomber who had blown himself to bits said "with a resolutely cheerful countenance,


"I was very happy when I heard. To be a martyr, that's something. Very few people can do it. I prayed to thank God. I know my son is close to me."34

Like serial killers—who are also sexually and physically abused as children—terrorists grow up filled with a rage that must be inflicted upon others. Many even preach violence against other Middle Eastern nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia "for not being sufficiently fervent in the campaign against materialism and Western values."35 If prevention rather than revenge is our goal, rather than pursuing a lengthy military war against terrorists and killing many innocent people while increasing the number of future terrorists, it might be better for the U.S. to back a U.N.-sponsored Marshall Plan for them—one that could include Community Parenting Centers run by local people who could teach more humane childrearing practices36—in order to give them the chance to evolve beyond the abusive family system that has produced the terrorism, just as we provided a Marshall Plan for Germans after WWII for the families that had produced Nazism.37

1. Soraya Altorki, Women in Saudi Arabia: Ideology and Behavior Among the Elite. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986, p. 30; Mazharul Haq Khari, Purdah and Polygamy: A Study in the Social Pathology of the Muslim Society. Peshawar Cantt., Nashiran-e-Ilm-o-Taraqiyet, 1972, p. 91.

2. Mona AlMunajjed, Women in Saudi Arabia Today. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997, p. 45.

3. The New York Times October 19, 20001, p. A19.

4. Jan Goodwin, Price of Honor: Muslim Women Lift the Veil of Silence on the Islamic World. Boston: Little, Brown, 1994, p. 43.

5. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, Prisoners of Ritual: An Odyssey Into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa. New York: Harrington Park Pres, 1989, pp. 9, 38, 39.

6. Ibid, p. 81.

7. Nawal El Saadawi, The Hidden Face of Even: Women in the Arab World. Boston: Beacon Press, 1980, p. 34; for additional references, see Lloyd deMause, "The Universality of Incest." The Journal of Psychohistory 19(1991): 157-164.

8. Cathy Joseph, "Compassionate Accountability: An Embodied Consideration of Female Genital Mutilation." The Journal of Psychohistory 24(1996): 5. Lindy Williams and Teresa Sobieszczyk, "Attitudes Surrounding the Continuation of Female Circumcision in the Sudan: Passing the Tradition to the Next Generation." Journal of Marriage and the Family 59(1997): 996; Jean P. Sasson, Princess: A True Story of Life Behind the Veil in Saudi Arabia. New York: Morrow, 1992, p. 137; http://www.path.org/Files/FGM-The-Facts.htm.

9. Mona AlMunajjed, Women in Saudi Arabia Today, p. 14.

10. Ibid, p. 13.

11. Eleanor Abdella Doumato, Getting God’s Ear: Women, Islam and Healing in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000, pp. 23, 85; Peter Parkes, "Kalasha Domestic Society." In Hastings Donnan and Frits Selier, Eds., Family and Gender in Pakistan: Domestic Organization in a Muslim Society. New Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corp., 1997, p. 46; Jan Goodwin,Price of Honor, p. 52.

12. Muhammad M. Haj-Yahia and Safa Tamish, "The Rates of Child Sexual Abuse and Its Psychological Consequences as Revealed by a Study Among Palestinian University Students." Child Abuse and Neglect 25(2001): 1303-1327, the results of which must be compared to comparable written responses for other areas, with allowance given for the extreme reluctance to reveal abuse that may put their lives in serious danger (p. 1305); for problems of interpretation of sexual abuse figures, see Lloyd deMause, "The Universality of Incest." The Journal of Psychohistory 19(1991): 123-165 (also on www.psychohistory.com in full).

13. Deborah Ellis, Women of the Afghan War. London: Praeger, 2000, p. 141.

14. S. Tamish, Misconceptions About Sexuality and Sexual Behavior in Palestinian Society. Ramallah: The Tamer Institute for Community Education, 1996.

15. "Women’s Woes," The Economist August 14, 1999, p. 32.

16. MSNBC, October 4, 2001.

17. Mazharul Haq Khari, Purdah and Polygamy, p. 107.

18. Samra Fayyazuddin, Anees Jillani, Zarina Jillani, The State of Pakistan’s Children 1997. Islamabad Pakistan: Sparc, 1998, p. 46.

19. Ibid, p. 47.

20. Samra Fayyazuddin et al, The State of Pakistan’s Children 1997, p. 51.

21. Allen Edwardes, The Cradle of Erotica. New York: The Julian Press, 1963, p. 40.

22. Muhammad M. Haj-Yahia and Safa Tamish, "The Rates of Child Sexual Abuse…," p. 1320; Fatna A. Sabbah, Woman in the Muslim Unconscious. New York: Pergamon Press, 1984, p. 28.

23. Samuel M. Zwemer, Childhood in the Moslem World, p. 104; Hilma Natalia Granqvist, Child Problems Among the Arabs: Studies in a Muhammadan Village in Palestine. Helsingfors: Soderstrom, 1950, pp. 102-107.

24. Soraya Altorki, Women in Saudi Arabia: Ideology and Behavior Among the Elite. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986, pp. 72-76.

25. Lloyd deMause, "The Evolution of Childrearing." The Journal of Psychohistory 28(2001): 362-451.

26. Time, October 22, 2001, p. 56.

27. Jan Goodwin, Price of Honor, p. 64.

28. MSNBC October 1, 2001.

29. Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad vx. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995, p. 207.

30. The New York Times, October 13, 2001, p. A15.

31. Yossef Bodansky, Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America. Rocklin: Forum, 1999, p. 3.

32. Ibid, p. 4.

33. "60 Minutes," September 23, 2001.

34. Joseph Lelyveld, "All Suicide Bombers Are Not Alike." New York Times Magazine, October 28, 2001, p. 50.

35. The New York Times, October 22, 2001, p. B4.

36. Robert B. McFarland and John Fanton, "Moving Towards Utopia: Prevention of Child Abuse." The Journal of Psychohistory 24(1997): 320-331.

37. Lloyd deMause, "War as Righteous Rape and Purification." The Journal of Psychohistory 27(2000): 407-438.

I have never once in this said I would torture them. I have addressed the cry that they are children, which is what the article addressed the OP posted.

Before you assume you understand anything I have an opinion on, why not read and comprehend it. Please point out where I said it was ok to torture children, or anyone.

If solitary confinement is torture then I suppose any parent to who sends their child to their room to stay for the day is torturing them?

Isolation, is a form of punishment but also a form of safety in the penal system. The child molester who is at risk of being killed by the general population of a prison is often put in solitary confinement for his own protection. Would you have him put in the general population instead? Would you have "children" (young boys) put in the general population of detainees?
I wouldn't have "children" (young boys) put in solitary confinement. Nor with the general population. There are alternatives. Simply seperating them would be enough. I don't think you understand what solitary confinement is or you wouldn't be contradicting yourself.

snip.
And now for something completely different...

I wouldn't have "children" (young boys) put in solitary confinement. Nor with the general population. There are alternatives. Simply seperating them would be enough. I don't think you understand what solitary confinement is or you wouldn't be contradicting yourself.

Still waiting for that post of mine that you claim I would prefer to torture anyone. I didn't contradict myself in the least.

They are isolated and have not been kept in the general population, that was for their own safety.

One thing seems to be missed here is under the Geneva convention, children are only under age 15. Muslim law in many countries considers an adult 14, including subject to criminal code within those countries that have Muslim law as part of their legal system. Employment and marriage also fall into age 14. So let's not forget we cannot equate "children" to western laws that do not recognize a 14 year old as an adult, when Muslim law does.
I agree! So what? Some of those kids were 12 by the time they were arrested. I'm sure a 12 years old kid brought up in the middle east can be easily mistaken as an adult. They are usually much more well fed and strong built than Europeans and Americans.

So you tortured them a bit? Nothing wrong with torturing a few kids now and again, right? It's just a few electric shocks, a few punches and kicks in the mouth and a few broken teeth. They are kids. The teeth will grow again. So we drop their heads under water and stuff. Nothing a kid can't take, you know?...

Ok, so maybe some of these kids are innocent... Well if they were, we'll find out during torture won't we? So what's the problem? What's the fuss? Don't worry...

Here's an idea. Maybe the US should start sending 14 year olds to Iraq as well, since there is nothing wrong about it "because they do it". Good idea?

Still waiting for that post of mine that you claim I would prefer to torture anyone. I didn't contradict myself in the least.
You'll be waiting a long time unless you understand that solitary confinement is torture.

For all of you that are having a henny penny about these "children" where is your outrage for how they ended up being here to begin with?"

1. Soraya Altorki, Women in Saudi Arabia: Ideology and Behavior Among the Elite. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986, p. 30; Mazharul Haq Khari, Purdah and Polygamy: A Study in the Social Pathology of the Muslim Society. Peshawar Cantt., Nashiran-e-Ilm-o-Taraqiyet, 1972, p. 91.

2. Mona AlMunajjed, Women in Saudi Arabia Today. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997, p. 45.

3. The New York Times October 19, 20001, p. A19.

4. Jan Goodwin, Price of Honor: Muslim Women Lift the Veil of Silence on the Islamic World. Boston: Little, Brown, 1994, p. 43.

5. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, Prisoners of Ritual: An Odyssey Into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa. New York: Harrington Park Pres, 1989, pp. 9, 38, 39.

6. Ibid, p. 81.

7. Nawal El Saadawi, The Hidden Face of Even: Women in the Arab World. Boston: Beacon Press, 1980, p. 34; for additional references, see Lloyd deMause, "The Universality of Incest." The Journal of Psychohistory 19(1991): 157-164.

8. Cathy Joseph, "Compassionate Accountability: An Embodied Consideration of Female Genital Mutilation." The Journal of Psychohistory 24(1996): 5. Lindy Williams and Teresa Sobieszczyk, "Attitudes Surrounding the Continuation of Female Circumcision in the Sudan: Passing the Tradition to the Next Generation." Journal of Marriage and the Family 59(1997): 996; Jean P. Sasson, Princess: A True Story of Life Behind the Veil in Saudi Arabia. New York: Morrow, 1992, p. 137; http://www.path.org/Files/FGM-The-Facts.htm.

9. Mona AlMunajjed, Women in Saudi Arabia Today, p. 14.

10. Ibid, p. 13.

11. Eleanor Abdella Doumato, Getting God’s Ear: Women, Islam and Healing in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000, pp. 23, 85; Peter Parkes, "Kalasha Domestic Society." In Hastings Donnan and Frits Selier, Eds., Family and Gender in Pakistan: Domestic Organization in a Muslim Society. New Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corp., 1997, p. 46; Jan Goodwin,Price of Honor, p. 52.

12. Muhammad M. Haj-Yahia and Safa Tamish, "The Rates of Child Sexual Abuse and Its Psychological Consequences as Revealed by a Study Among Palestinian University Students." Child Abuse and Neglect 25(2001): 1303-1327, the results of which must be compared to comparable written responses for other areas, with allowance given for the extreme reluctance to reveal abuse that may put their lives in serious danger (p. 1305); for problems of interpretation of sexual abuse figures, see Lloyd deMause, "The Universality of Incest." The Journal of Psychohistory 19(1991): 123-165 (also on www.psychohistory.com in full).

13. Deborah Ellis, Women of the Afghan War. London: Praeger, 2000, p. 141.

14. S. Tamish, Misconceptions About Sexuality and Sexual Behavior in Palestinian Society. Ramallah: The Tamer Institute for Community Education, 1996.

15. "Women’s Woes," The Economist August 14, 1999, p. 32.

16. MSNBC, October 4, 2001.

17. Mazharul Haq Khari, Purdah and Polygamy, p. 107.

18. Samra Fayyazuddin, Anees Jillani, Zarina Jillani, The State of Pakistan’s Children 1997. Islamabad Pakistan: Sparc, 1998, p. 46.

19. Ibid, p. 47.

20. Samra Fayyazuddin et al, The State of Pakistan’s Children 1997, p. 51.

21. Allen Edwardes, The Cradle of Erotica. New York: The Julian Press, 1963, p. 40.

22. Muhammad M. Haj-Yahia and Safa Tamish, "The Rates of Child Sexual Abuse…," p. 1320; Fatna A. Sabbah, Woman in the Muslim Unconscious. New York: Pergamon Press, 1984, p. 28.

23. Samuel M. Zwemer, Childhood in the Moslem World, p. 104; Hilma Natalia Granqvist, Child Problems Among the Arabs: Studies in a Muhammadan Village in Palestine. Helsingfors: Soderstrom, 1950, pp. 102-107.

24. Soraya Altorki, Women in Saudi Arabia: Ideology and Behavior Among the Elite. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986, pp. 72-76.

25. Lloyd deMause, "The Evolution of Childrearing." The Journal of Psychohistory 28(2001): 362-451.

26. Time, October 22, 2001, p. 56.

27. Jan Goodwin, Price of Honor, p. 64.

28. MSNBC October 1, 2001.

29. Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad vx. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995, p. 207.

30. The New York Times, October 13, 2001, p. A15.

31. Yossef Bodansky, Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America. Rocklin: Forum, 1999, p. 3.

32. Ibid, p. 4.

33. "60 Minutes," September 23, 2001.

34. Joseph Lelyveld, "All Suicide Bombers Are Not Alike." New York Times Magazine, October 28, 2001, p. 50.

35. The New York Times, October 22, 2001, p. B4.

36. Robert B. McFarland and John Fanton, "Moving Towards Utopia: Prevention of Child Abuse." The Journal of Psychohistory 24(1997): 320-331.

37. Lloyd deMause, "War as Righteous Rape and Purification." The Journal of Psychohistory 27(2000): 407-438.

Hey... Guess what? Since you're fighting a war to protect the rights and freedoms of women and children of the Middle East, I've highlighted the countries you should be attacking next... You don't have any special relationships with any of these, do you?

I am not saying they are not frightened children, I am saying they are still a threat frightened children or not.
But why, why , WHY are they kept at Guantanamo? Why not in prisons in Afghanistan or in the US? Why is a 13-year old child kept with "the worst of the worst"?


One thing seems to be missed here is under the Geneva convention, children are only under age 15.
Link? Proof of this?

No solitary confinement is not torture. It is used in all penal systems, legally. That is your opinon, but not a fact.
Fact: Prolonged usage of solitary confinement has a severe negative impact on a person's mental state and may constitute torture.


Also your opinon that 17 and under would define a minor, when in fact it does not internationally. And we are discussing international practices.
Internationally: "a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years"
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm)



Not that we are even discussing those that follow the Geneva Convention, we are expected to but where is the howl for those that are using 14 and 15 year old soldiers to begin with?? Their own mindset is that they are adults and they are soldiers, who are we to deny them that?? You want to insult them more by telling them they aren't "old" enough to be soldiers??
Yet they aren't granted the same rights as soldiers, POW, in this case...

If solitary confinement is torture then I suppose any parent to who sends their child to their room to stay for the day is torturing them?
Not at all... just make sure you don't leave a chair or a bed where they can sit or lie down, no toys, no books, no nothing in fact... Lock and block the windows, so that no light comes in, throw their food on the floor and leave them in there for a few days. Oh yeah, nearly forgot, leave a bucket for dumps...

It's NOT torture...

p.s. don't forget to switch off the light.

Not at all... just make sure you don't leave a chair or a bed where they can sit or lie down, no toys, no books, no nothing in fact... Lock and block the windows, so that no light comes in, throw their food on the floor and leave them in there for a few days. Oh yeah, nearly forgot, leave a bucket for dumps...

It's NOT torture...

p.s. don't forget to switch off the light.
You really are the Crown Prince.

Link? Proof of this?

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 38, (1989) proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities."

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

You really are the Crown Prince.
Who? :D

Who?
Ahh, got it. Mums the word.

You'll be waiting a long time unless you understand that solitary confinement is torture.

I will be waiting a long time because you made it up.

Nice try.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 38, (1989) proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_soldier
And? They are still children.
See the link you've provided?
"Child soldier."

Do you have a link to the Geneva Convention were it says that people older then 15 years do not count as children, as you said?

Hey... Guess what? Since you're fighting a war to protect the rights and freedoms of women and children of the Middle East, I've highlighted the countries you should be attacking next... You don't have any special relationships with any of these, do you?

Are these countries producing terrorists through goverment sanctioned brainwashing? Intentionally keeping the population poor and uneducated in order to grow the next crop of terrorists? I think there are cells in those countries doing it, but I don't think the governments are perpetuating it. Time will tell.

And? They are still children.
See the link you've provided?
"Child soldier."

Do you have a link to the Geneva Convention were it says that people older then 15 years do not count as children, as you said?

UN convention, my mistake.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international convention setting out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children. It is monitored by the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Most member nation states (countries) of the United Nations have ratified it, either partly or completely. The United Nations General Assembly agreed to adopt the Convention into international law on November 20, 1989; it came into force in September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. The Convention generally defines a child as any person under the age of 18, unless an earlier age of majority is recognized by a country's law.

I will be waiting a long time because you made it up.

Nice try.
Did you see the link? Should I give you more?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4203803.stm
http://www.afsc.org/news/2006/solitary-confinement.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/20/tunisi10523.htm
"Humeid Salem al-Ghawas al-Za’abi, a high ranking officer in the UAE air force,
was detained on 17 March 2004 in Abu Dhabi, reportedly by military intelligence
personnel. The reasons for his arrest and detention are not known. He was kept
incommunicado, without charge and in solitary confinement for about 11 months,
before being allowed visits from relatives. He is not thought to have been
physically tortured. However, he has recently been admitted to a hospital
psychiatric unit for treatment, reportedly due to his long period of solitary
confinement. He may be returned to solitary confinement after completing his
treatment, which would cause further harm to his mental health."
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE250042005?open&of=ENG-ARE

http://www.afsc.org/control-unit/default.htm

"During the early days of space travel, it was normal to put trainees into isolation chambers to see how long they would last. They were on their own in silence, without any means of knowing the time. Many men cracked. One cosmonaut, Andrian Nikolayev, lasted the longest. He spent 4 days in the isolation chamber and he was then called 'The iron man'. An important difference between the solitary confinement of prisoners and the isolation chamber is that the trainee in the isolation chamber could press the buzzer and come out at any time. Neither, obviously, was any trainee mentally ill."
http://www.disabilityworld.org/03-04_01/news/ireland.shtml

Torture methods to consider include, but are not limited to:

(a) Blunt trauma, such as a punch, kick, slap, whipping, a beating with wires or truncheons or falling down;
(b) Positional torture, using suspension, stretching limbs apart, prolonged constraint of movement, forced positioning;
(c) Burns with cigarettes, heated instruments, scalding liquid or a caustic substance;
(d) Electric shock;
(e) Asphyxiation, such as wet and dry methods, drowning, smothering, choking or use of chemicals;
(f) Crush injuries, such as smashing fingers or using a heavy roller to injure the thighs or back;
(g) Penetrating injuries, such as stab and gunshot wounds, wires under nails;
(h) Chemical exposures to salt, chilli pepper, gasoline, etc. (in wounds or body cavities);
(i) Sexual violence to genitals, molestation, instrumentation, rape;
(j) Crush injury or traumatic removal of digits and limbs;
(k) Medical amputation of digits or limbs, surgical removal of organs;
(l) Pharmacological torture using toxic doses of sedatives, neuroleptics, paralytics, etc.;
(m) Conditions of detention, such as a small or overcrowded cell, solitary confinement, unhygienic conditions, no access to toilet facilities, irregular or contaminated food and water, exposure to extremes of temperature, denial of privacy and forced nakedness;
(n) Deprivation of normal sensory stimulation, such as sound, light, sense of time, isolation, manipulation of brightness of the cell, abuse of physiological needs, restriction of sleep, food, water, toilet facilities, bathing, motor activities, medical care, social contacts, isolation within prison, loss of contact with the outside world (victims often are kept in isolation in order to prevent bonding and mutual identification and to encourage traumatic bonding with the torturer);
(o) Humiliations, such as verbal abuse, performance of humiliating acts;
(p) Threats of death, harm to family, further torture, imprisonment, mock executions;
(q) Threats of attacks by animals, such as dogs, cats, rats or scorpions;
(r) Psychological techniques to break down the individual, including forced betrayals, learned helplessness,exposure to ambiguous situations or contradictory messages;
(s) Violation of taboos;
(t) Behavioural coercion, such as forced engagement in practices against one's religion (e.g. forcing Muslims to eat pork), forced harm to others through torture or other abuses, forced to destroy property, forced to betray someone placing them at risk for harm
(u) Forced to witness torture or atrocities being inflicted on others.
http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/action06012004_faq.html

snip

I think you are lost or something. You accused me of saying torture was ok. I am waiting for your cite of that post or any post where I said that.

Like I said I will be waiting a long time for you to post where I did, because you made that statement up.

UN convention, my mistake.
And it doesn't say anything about child soldiers not being counted as "children", does it?
Most member nation states (countries) of the United Nations have ratified it, either partly or completely. The United Nations General Assembly agreed to adopt the Convention into international law on November 20, 1989; it came into force in September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. The Convention generally defines a child as any person under the age of 18, unless an earlier age of majority is recognized by a country's law.
Yes, so internationally it is generally 18, but it might be different in individual countries.

And this 15-years limit you've been talking about, where did that come from?

One thing seems to be missed here is under the Geneva convention, children are only under age 15.

And it doesn't say anything about child soldiers not being counted as "children", does it?

Yes, so internationally it is generally 18, but it might be different in individual countries.

And this 15-years limit you've been talking about, where did that come from?

Each country has their own statute. Many muslim based governments recognize 14 and 15 as legal to hold jobs, marry, and be soldiers.

For one Brunei:

Minimum age for criminal responsibility

52. From the legal point of view, two approaches are possible. Under the French-based Civil and Criminal Codes, a child under the age of 13 is totally free from criminal responsibility. Under Muslim law, physical maturity confers civil and criminal responsibility on a male child. The age of legal majority is therefore considered to be 14-15 years. […]

79. In criminal cases, children are subject to special arrangements. This is because children under 13 years of age are not criminally liable for their actions. […]

http://www.right-to-education.org/content/age/brunei.html

Solitary confinement is not torture. It is an effort to keep them from being even more indocterinated by the "adults" (again western beliefs they are not adults). You can't have it both ways.
This is where you said it.

And it doesn't say anything about child soldiers not being counted as "children", does it?

Yes, so internationally it is generally 18, but it might be different in individual countries.

And this 15-years limit you've been talking about, where did that come from?

Also regarding Islamic law:

60. Islam defines childhood as any age below puberty. According to the Prophet Muhammad, God does not hold children accountable for their bad deeds. Childhood is the time when children must be taught the skills of living a virtuous life so that when their deeds do count, after the age of 12 or 13 or so, they will have no difficulty. Similarly, a sleeping person and a mentally challenged person are not held accountable until they wake up and become right-minded again, respectively.

http://www2.gvsu.edu/~msa/Islam/quick_facts.html

Darwinianmonkeys, can you put your hand on your heart and tell me every single one of the people held in gitmo deserves to be there? even the ones picked up by the northern alliace and bounty hunters (by the us govts own admission 60% of the population of the camp), who to coin your phrase were most certainly not caught with guns in their hands?

do you understand where the 'charge them or release them' argument comes from?

wrapping your argument in faux legalisms does not hide the fact that these people are entitled to certain legal protections. not to be tortured and to be at least told why they are there if not charged at some point.

but most pressingly, is the place worth the can of worms it has opened? could they not have been dealt with by conventional legal means and not shown the us up as being willing to fight very very dirty, playing right into the enemies hands?

Are these countries producing terrorists through goverment sanctioned brainwashing? Intentionally keeping the population poor and uneducated in order to grow the next crop of terrorists? I think there are cells in those countries doing it, but I don't think the governments are perpetuating it. Time will tell.
You extremely long rant was not about terrorism... You tried to label as hypocrites those people that expressed concern about the children in Guantanamo because, as you very well all-know, not one member in this forum has EVER made any comments showing outrage towards the abuse of rights and freedoms of the women and children in the Middle East.

Problem is, you tried call us hypocrites and you picked up two examples: "Saudi Arabia" and "Pakistan". These are among the US's best friends in the region.

You brought the issue up, without realising you were adding wood to your own fire...

One thing seems to be missed here is under the UN convention, children are only under age 15. (my corrections Bold)
So you made it up? Or was it simply incorrect?

Each country has their own statute. Many muslim based governments recognize 14 and 15 as legal to hold jobs, marry, and be soldiers.

For one Brunei:

Minimum age for criminal responsibility

52. From the legal point of view, two approaches are possible. Under the French-based Civil and Criminal Codes, a child under the age of 13 is totally free from criminal responsibility. Under Muslim law, physical maturity confers civil and criminal responsibility on a male child. The age of legal majority is therefore considered to be 14-15 years. […]

79. In criminal cases, children are subject to special arrangements. This is because children under 13 years of age are not criminally liable for their actions. […]

http://www.right-to-education.org/content/age/brunei.html
So what? Even if they are criminally liable, it doesn't make them any less children.

Hell, in the US you can find states where 7-year old are considered to have reached an age of criminal responsibility (Oklahoma (http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~haralds/juvenilejustice.html)) - but they are still considered as children.

What you seem to be missing, is the hatred for western civilzations. You understand completely the poverty and the fundamental brainwashing completely. But it seems you don't grasp the fact that education is a threat, equalizing people is a threat to Al Queda.

If these same children were educated, given a chance to prosper their minds would never embrace terrorism on the feed of salvation. We all know this, and so do those running Al Queda and terrorism. They prey on the uneducated, those that have nothing and are looking for any answers to their misery.

Instead of taking the funds of one of the world's most valuable commodities and investing it into their own people, they have worked to keep them brainwashed, it is how they garner their support. Western civilization and ideas such as equal rights threatens that very hold.


Just presuming that those youths are actually "Islamists" -

So they're "uneducated" and brainwashed into believing that the West is evil. And when they are caught by the west they are locked away without trial and tortured for years.

Presumably irony is not something you pick up easily.


Solitary confinement is not torture.

It is. Proved to be, Particularily when the prisoner had no release date or charge or trial date.

an effort to keep them from being even more indocterinated by the "adults"

Which resumes the adults are guilty, and that the children have already been brainwashed, none of which has been proven.

"Young girls are treated abominably in most fundamentalist families. When a boy is born, the family rejoices; when a girl is born, the whole family mourns.4 The girl's sexuality is so hated that when she is five or so the women grab her, pin her down, and chop off her clitoris and often her labia with a razor blade or piece of glass, ignoring her agony and screams for help, because, they say, her clitoris is "dirty," "ugly," "poisonous," "can cause a voracious appetite for promiscuous sex," and "might render men impotent.""

A sweeping generalisation which as ever conveys more ignorance on the entire topic. Many doubt Mr De Mause's methodology (and indeed the credibility of his whole field) and this does nothing to further my opinion of him.

This is where you said it.

No I did not say that torture was ok. I said solitary confinement is not torture. You want to dispute that, yet it is not defined in all instances as torture and I haven't seen any proof that the type of solitary confinement used has been of a torture level.

"It is indisputable that torture and other prohibited ill-treatment may involve mental suffering as well as, or instead of, physical suffering. Prolonged solitary confinement, especially if combined with extreme deprivation of sources of stimulation and meaningful activities, may cause mental suffering that violates international standards.

The UN Human Rights Committee ruled that solitary confinement of one month in a cell with 24 hour a day artificial light was torture. While the European Convention on Human Rights said that…”complete sensory isolation coupled with complete social isolation can destroy the personality”, however, it ruled that such was permissible for terrorism suspects.

http://www.prisons.org/human_rights.htm

It really depends on whether you mix up solitary confinement with any other kind of torture, (although I believe that it's torture unto itself, and the two bodies disagree anyway) because it generally makes them much worse.

You extremely long rant was not about terrorism... You tried to label as hypocrites those people that expressed concern about the children in Guantanamo because, as you very well all-know, not one member in this forum has EVER made any comments showing outrage towards the abuse of rights and freedoms of the women and children in the Middle East.

Problem is, you tried call us hypocrites and you picked up two examples: "Saudi Arabia" and "Pakistan". These are among the US's best friends in the region.

You brought the issue up, without realising you were adding wood to your own fire...

You are hypocrits when you want to lable soldiers as children using your definition of what a child is.

I didn't post a rant, I posted an article that recognizes exactly what was posted here by someone (maybe you I have forgotten) that being brainwashed is not the "children's" fault. I agree, it isn't.

Is it too much to ask that people understand that we are not dealing with children, but only by the definition that we have ourselves in our own societies? The posters that want to play on the sympathies of the "poor children" do not want to recognize that these are soldiers and this is war. Their age is irrelevant considering when their own societies deem them as adults. Yet we do recognize them as children whether their own cultures do or not.

The article is to point out exactly the mind set we are dealing with, these are not "children" as we know "children" to be. You cannot ignore that fact.

The article is to point out exactly the mind set we are dealing with, these are not "children" as we know "children" to be. You cannot ignore that fact.

So why not say that the civillians in the twin towers, being sons and daughters of the "great satan" are not civillians as we know civillians then.

(my corrections Bold)
So you made it up? Or was it simply incorrect?


So what? Even if they are criminally liable, it doesn't make them any less children.

Hell, in the US you can find states where 7-year old are considered to have reached an age of criminal responsibility (Oklahoma (http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~haralds/juvenilejustice.html)) - but they are still considered as children.

It was a mistake on the correct convention I spoke of, I said it was a mistake.

Many posters here would use the word "children" as in some way excusing their actions and that somehow we are wrong to be detaining children. I don't agree and have stated why. By their own societies and laws they are not children. We consider them children, but cannot ignore the threat simply because they are under our age of majority.

It was a mistake on the correct convention I spoke of, I said it was a mistake.

Many posters here would use the word "children" as in some way excusing their actions and that somehow we are wrong to be detaining children. I don't agree and have stated why. By their own societies and laws they are not children. We consider them children, but cannot ignore the threat simply because they are under our age of majority.

you are working on the very shaky assumption that they actually did something to deserve this fate, an assumption very few share. is it beyond the realms of possiblility that a few of them are innocent? do you care?

see the qustions i posed up this page.

It's been fun, and yes I read with an open mind. I simply do not agree with many of you and you do not me and that is ok. Just wanted to say I have enjoyed the posts, but need to go now.

Take care.

you are working on the very shaky assumption that they actually did something to deserve this fate, an assumption very few share. is it beyond the realms of possiblility that a few of them are innocent? do you care?

see the qustions i posed up this page.

Ok last post, really I have to go :p

First, none of us know if it is shaky or not. Prisoners are gradually being released when it is determined they are not terrorists or affiliated with terrorists.

Yes, I care that some may be innocent. I hate it in fact. But until that can be determined I am not of a mind they should go free. These people were not picked up soccer games, there is a reason they were picked up and that can't be ignored.

I agree that the slowness of the determination is not a good thing, but I cannot answer as to why it is so slow nor can you.

I prefer that our country be safe than sorry. If detaining people prevents another attack I will support it. You cannot say it hasn't, and no I cannot say it has but I can say we haven't been attacked again so it leans to detaining as a preventative measure. You cannot say that detaining these people has not helped our country. The publicity of it hurts us where opinions are concerned but opinons of others will not protect us and that is what to me counts.

Take care.

The UN Human Rights Committee ruled that solitary confinement of one month in a cell with 24 hour a day artificial light was torture. While the European Commission on Human Rights said that…”complete sensory isolation coupled with complete social isolation can destroy the personality”, however, it ruled that such was permissible for terrorism suspects.

http://www.prisons.org/human_rights.htm
Corrected.

And the case "Krocher and Miller v. Switzerland" (DR 34) where this quote is from is from 1983 and is getting old, as is "X v. Denmark" (DR 27, 1982) where 425 days and 515 days of isolation were torture.

So again: Isolation may constitute torture.

It was a mistake on the correct convention I spoke of, I said it was a mistake.
A mistake of conventions, yes, I just didn't understand the 15-year thing... Oh well, bygones.

[QUOTE=Darwinianmonkeys]
Many posters here would use the word "children" as in some way excusing their actions and that somehow we are wrong to be detaining children. I don't agree and have stated why. By their own societies and laws they are not children. We consider them children, but cannot ignore the threat simply because they are under our age of majority.
But it isn't their society and laws the US government will be judged by.

And nobody has even tried to answer my question: Why put these children in Guantanamo, a place reserved for "the worst of the worst"?

No I did not say that torture was ok. I said solitary confinement is not torture. You want to dispute that, yet it is not defined in all instances as torture and I haven't seen any proof that the type of solitary confinement used has been of a torture level.

"It is indisputable that torture and other prohibited ill-treatment may involve mental suffering as well as, or instead of, physical suffering. Prolonged solitary confinement, especially if combined with extreme deprivation of sources of stimulation and meaningful activities, may cause mental suffering that violates international standards.

The UN Human Rights Committee ruled that solitary confinement of one month in a cell with 24 hour a day artificial light was torture. While the European Convention on Human Rights said that…”complete sensory isolation coupled with complete social isolation can destroy the personality”, however, it ruled that such was permissible for terrorism suspects.

http://www.prisons.org/human_rights.htm
So permissable torture is not torture?

in reality this iis still torture no matter how you look at it.... I say we stand up to these people and give them a peice of our mind what say all of you i for one am going to write Mr. Bush and tell him the whole thing.... this is way outta hand

Yes, I care that some may be innocent. I hate it in fact. But until that can be determined I am not of a mind they should go free. These people were not picked up soccer games, there is a reason they were picked up and that can't be ignored.
Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the
detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States
custody.

This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the
United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected
enemies.
Source (http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf)

I prefer that our country be safe than sorry. If detaining people prevents another attack I will support it. You cannot say it hasn't, and no I cannot say it has but I can say we haven't been attacked again so it leans to detaining as a preventative measure. You cannot say that detaining these people has not helped our country. The publicity of it hurts us where opinions are concerned but opinons of others will not protect us and that is what to me counts.
But are you sure of this? Think of the propaganda value for the enemies of the USA. Think of the detainees released without any apologies after being unjustly held for four or five years - and then imagine that they were tortured as well. Might they become terrorists? Might their friends and families grow to hate Amerika for what it has done to them?

Guantanamo may come back to haunt America for a long time.

Take care.
You to ;)

So permissable torture is not torture?
In that particular case it was found not to be torture (and not "permissible torture") because it was not proven that they were exposed to a form of physical or mental suffering designed to punish them, destroy their personality or break their resistance. (Page 57 - sorry, no link) In addition, the conditions improved gradually over time.

In that particular case it was found not to be torture (and not "permissible torture") because it was not proven that they were exposed to a form of physical or mental suffering designed to punish them, destroy their personality or break their resistance. (Page 57 - sorry, no link) In addition, the conditions improved gradually over time.
If suffering is a byproduct, then they are not being tortured? I'm really trying to understand.

I've seen plenty of blame-game stuff happening. People have accused China, Al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Bob the Builder and his niece of greater evils. But so what? This article does not mention all of them. Nor does it need to. Anyone who is not aware of torture in China doesn't really belong on this forum in the first place. Fact is people, your president Bush, or his cronies, or the CIA, or the military, or a combination or even all of them are torturing people, holding them without trail, and now it seems regardless of age. What are you gonna do about it?

Are you gonna point fingers at other people and states and say: they also torture and corrupt children? Is that going to stop what is happening in Guantanamo Bay? Start a thread on those others, any of them, somewhere else and we will be in almost complete unanimous agreement that China or North Korea sucks when you hate dictatorships. That fine, I don't mind that. But sadly right now there is a country which should have been held to higher standards. A country that has been avoiding the truth, silently condoning torture, unjustified lockup and some really weird things that happened in Kosovo and Bosnia not so long ago and are now happening wherever CIA planes land. So who's going to shut up about it and allow it to happen? If you are like that, I think you have no right to accuse China of anything. Better yet, you'd feel quite homely there since human rights don't seem to concern you the least. Of course we should never forgive or forget those who have caused so much terror by imprisoning people simply because they disagree with the state or simply because they are a little different. Hitler did it in Germany. Stalin did it in the Soviet Union. The Kim dynasty is doing it in North Korea. And unless some people get off their lazy butts and demonstrate, write letters to senators and statesmen, investigate the military and the CIA or attempt to impeach Bush then Bush will go down in history along with these previously mentioned men as the man who let these injustices happen under his watch in the United States. Worse, he allowed it to happen in a democracy.

"Feel sorry for the US please"... Give me a break from your self-pity. Those CHILDREN cutting heads off in Darfur need as much special treatment: yes they do. CHILDREN should not be punished for wars they didn't start. CHILDREN have been forced many times to participate in wars. Even when they aren't forced, they are influenced and CHILDREN are easy to manipulate....

Children carrying AK 47's and participating in armed conflict or suicide bombings need only to be shot just like anyother combatant.

you of course are more than within your rights if you feel you can survive long enough to give them a nice big kiss and a hug and make them all better .

If I am at the wrong end of a " childs " rifle ..I could care less about special treatment..all I want is a nice tight group at the center of mass ...then I want the head of the idiots who sent him out to fight put on a stick in a public square .

If suffering is a byproduct, then they are not being tortured? I'm really trying to understand.
This case isn't particularly easy to understand. But it's old, and I doubt the arguements used would have been the same today.

I think the main points are that the conditions improved over time, that the swiss government didn't intend to cause that kind of suffering, and that it was a tool used to fight a serious type of crime, namely terrorism.

But this really isn't a case from where you can deduce general guidelines concerning when isolation amounts to torture, in my opinion.

Its all nice and well to bitch about things like this, isn't it? However what else are you going to do about it? Do you really care enough, are you willing to step out of the apathetic crowd and actually try to make a change for the better in the world? We wonder how the American government does these things. Well, quite simply, because the government's power comes from us. We give up our rights to them and say "Do whatever you want with them, just let me watch TV and eat my TV dinners, and I'm good." basically. I'm not talking to everyone, because I'm sure some people really do try to fix these things, but I'm saying quit sitting on your ass, or if you are going to sit on your ass, sit on your ass and do something constructive. Join an organization or two like Amnesty International www.amnesty.org and the ACLU www.aclu.org that stands up for human rights and tries to do something. They have action centers where you can get informed and that provide the information to write your local Senators or Representatives. Also, you could go to www.Congress.org and get that information. You can get your congressmen's office addresses and phone numbers, and write them and call them. You may not be able to get them to do more than ignore you, or write you a letter back that does nothing but talk in circles, but you're doing something. Remember in Shawshank Redemption when he wrote the letters to the Congress person over and over until they listened? That sort of thing. You may not think it helps, that its too small, but truth be told, it really is the small, little, insignificant looking things that change the world. Our lakes and oceans are filled by millions of tiny raindrops, not by heaping globs of water that appear from nowhere.
Also, you could try rallying people. Start a network of like-minded people. Protest in the streets and in public places. Call the media before your event so theyre more likely to cover it. Dont do anything destructive in your protests, but do something unique and flashy to get noticed instead of just boring old signs.
Also, you could start petitions.

It all sounds like something that won't make a difference, but believe me when I tell you, everything we do makes a difference, even the small things. It only takes a small seed and some time to grow the tallest, strongest, longest-lived trees. A lot of things are also like that. Christians might recal Jesus' saying "Faith as a small mustard seed can move mountains." Catholic Christians could recall St. Francis of Assisi's words "Start by doing whats necessary, then do what's possible, then suddenly, you are doing the impossible." and all of us could recall Gandhi saying "Be the change you wish to see in the world" "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

BTW this is the article

The 'IoS' reveals today that more than 60 of the detainees of the US camp were under 18 at the time of their capture, some as young as 14
By Severin Carrell
Published: 28 May 2006
The notorious US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay has been hit by fresh allegations of human rights abuses, with claims that dozens of children were sent there - some as young as 14 years old.

Lawyers in London estimate that more than 60 detainees held at the terrorists' prison camp were boys under 18 when they were captured.

They include at least 10 detainees still held at the US base in Cuba who were 14 or 15 when they were seized - including child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured.

The disclosures threaten to plunge the Bush administration into a fresh row with Britain, its closest ally in the war on terror, only days after the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, repeated his demands for the closure of the detention facility. It was, he said, a "symbol of injustice".

Whitehall sources said the new allegations, from the London-based legal rights group Reprieve, directly contradicted the Bush administration's assurances to the UK that no juveniles had been held there. "We would take a very, very dim view if it transpires that there were actually minors there," said an official.

One child prisoner, Mohamed el Gharani, is accused of involvement in a 1998 al-Qa'ida plot in London led by the alleged al-Qa'ida leader in Europe, Abu Qatada. But he was 12 years old at the time and living with his parents in Saudi Arabia.

After being arrested in Karachi in October 2001, aged 14, he has spent several years in solitary confinement as an alleged al-Qa'ida-trained fighter.

One Canadian-born boy, Omar Khadr, was 15 when arrested in 2002 and has also been kept in solitary confinement. The son of a known al-Qa'ida commander, he is accused of killing a US soldier with a grenade in July 2002 and was placed top of the Bush administration's list of detainees facing prosecution.

"It would surely be really quite stupid to allow the world to think you have teenagers in orange jumpsuits and shackles, spending 23 hours a day locked up in a cage," a source added. "If it's true that young people have been held there, their cases should be dealt with as a priority."

British officials last night told the IoS that the UK had been assured that any juveniles would be held in a special facility for child detainees at Guantanamo called Camp Iguana. But the US admits only three inmates were ever treated as children - three young Afghans, one aged 13, who were released in 2004 after a furore over their detention.

The row will again focus attention on the Bush administration's repeated claims that normal rules of war and human rights conventions do not apply to "enemy combatants" who were al-Qa'ida or Taliban fighters and supporters. The US insists these fighters did not have the same legal status as soldiers in uniform.

Clive Stafford Smith, a legal director of Reprieve and lawyer for a number of detainees, said it broke every widely accepted legal convention on human rights to put children in the same prison as adults - including US law.

"There is nothing wrong with trying minors for crimes, if they have committed crimes. The problem is when you either hold minors without trial in shocking conditions, or try them before a military commission that, in the words of a prosecutor who refused to take part, is rigged," he said. "Even if these kids were involved in fighting - and Omar is the only one who the military pretends was - then there is a UN convention against the use of child soldiers. There is a general recognition in the civilised world that children should be treated differently from adults."

Because the detainees have been held in Cuba for four years, all the teenagers are now thought to have reached their 18th birthdays in Guantanamo Bay and some have since been released.

The latest figures emerged after the Department of Defense (DoD) in Washington was forced to release the first ever list of Guantanamo detainees earlier this month. Although lawyers say it is riddled with errors - getting numerous names and dates of birth wrong - they were able to confirm that 17 detainees on the list were under 18 when taken to the camp, and another seven were probably juveniles.

In addition, said Mr Stafford Smith, they had credible evidence from other detainees, lawyers and the International Red Cross that another 37 inmates were under 18 when they were seized. One detainee, an al-Jazeera journalist called Sami el Hajj, has identified 36 juveniles in Guantanamo.

A senior Pentagon spokesman, Lt Commander Jeffrey Gordon, insisted that no one now being held at Guantanamo was a juvenile and said the DoD also rejected arguments that normal criminal law was relevant to the Guantanamo detainees.

"There is no international standard concerning the age of an individual who engages in combat operations... Age is not a determining factor in detention. [of those] engaged in armed conflict against our forces or in support to those fighting against us."

The notorious US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay has been hit by fresh allegations of human rights abuses, with claims that dozens of children were sent there - some as young as 14 years old.

Lawyers in London estimate that more than 60 detainees held at the terrorists' prison camp were boys under 18 when they were captured.

They include at least 10 detainees still held at the US base in Cuba who were 14 or 15 when they were seized - including child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured.

The disclosures threaten to plunge the Bush administration into a fresh row with Britain, its closest ally in the war on terror, only days after the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, repeated his demands for the closure of the detention facility. It was, he said, a "symbol of injustice".

Whitehall sources said the new allegations, from the London-based legal rights group Reprieve, directly contradicted the Bush administration's assurances to the UK that no juveniles had been held there. "We would take a very, very dim view if it transpires that there were actually minors there," said an official.

One child prisoner, Mohamed el Gharani, is accused of involvement in a 1998 al-Qa'ida plot in London led by the alleged al-Qa'ida leader in Europe, Abu Qatada. But he was 12 years old at the time and living with his parents in Saudi Arabia.

After being arrested in Karachi in October 2001, aged 14, he has spent several years in solitary confinement as an alleged al-Qa'ida-trained fighter.

One Canadian-born boy, Omar Khadr, was 15 when arrested in 2002 and has also been kept in solitary confinement. The son of a known al-Qa'ida commander, he is accused of killing a US soldier with a grenade in July 2002 and was placed top of the Bush administration's list of detainees facing prosecution.

"It would surely be really quite stupid to allow the world to think you have teenagers in orange jumpsuits and shackles, spending 23 hours a day locked up in a cage," a source added. "If it's true that young people have been held there, their cases should be dealt with as a priority."

British officials last night told the IoS that the UK had been assured that any juveniles would be held in a special facility for child detainees at Guantanamo called Camp Iguana. But the US admits only three inmates were ever treated as children - three young Afghans, one aged 13, who were released in 2004 after a furore over their detention.
The row will again focus attention on the Bush administration's repeated claims that normal rules of war and human rights conventions do not apply to "enemy combatants" who were al-Qa'ida or Taliban fighters and supporters. The US insists these fighters did not have the same legal status as soldiers in uniform.

Clive Stafford Smith, a legal director of Reprieve and lawyer for a number of detainees, said it broke every widely accepted legal convention on human rights to put children in the same prison as adults - including US law.

"There is nothing wrong with trying minors for crimes, if they have committed crimes. The problem is when you either hold minors without trial in shocking conditions, or try them before a military commission that, in the words of a prosecutor who refused to take part, is rigged," he said. "Even if these kids were involved in fighting - and Omar is the only one who the military pretends was - then there is a UN convention against the use of child soldiers. There is a general recognition in the civilised world that children should be treated differently from adults."

Because the detainees have been held in Cuba for four years, all the teenagers are now thought to have reached their 18th birthdays in Guantanamo Bay and some have since been released.

The latest figures emerged after the Department of Defense (DoD) in Washington was forced to release the first ever list of Guantanamo detainees earlier this month. Although lawyers say it is riddled with errors - getting numerous names and dates of birth wrong - they were able to confirm that 17 detainees on the list were under 18 when taken to the camp, and another seven were probably juveniles.

In addition, said Mr Stafford Smith, they had credible evidence from other detainees, lawyers and the International Red Cross that another 37 inmates were under 18 when they were seized. One detainee, an al-Jazeera journalist called Sami el Hajj, has identified 36 juveniles in Guantanamo.

A senior Pentagon spokesman, Lt Commander Jeffrey Gordon, insisted that no one now being held at Guantanamo was a juvenile and said the DoD also rejected arguments that normal criminal law was relevant to the Guantanamo detainees.

"There is no international standard concerning the age of an individual who engages in combat operations... Age is not a determining factor in detention. [of those] engaged in armed conflict against our forces or in support to those fighting against us."


A 17 year old male with a rifle is a legitamate target . Thats a fact jack.
In WWII All the nations involved in the fighting had soldiers as young as 16 seving .

This article is sensationalist bullshit .

I have spent the six hours trying to fact check it..

I have come accross over a thousand pages of aticles and sories about Groups that are involved in attempting to protect and represent these " children " NONE of the facts match antything in this article .

But I read back through the thread and all I see is a bunch of dupes ready to believe anything they read. DECLARE war on the US ...Sanctions ... etc. etc. all based ON BULLSHIT ....

I am actually concerned that their may be some truth the subject and thats what motivated me to check into it..

Before I put my credibility on the line and make accusations or attempt to point the proper people in the direction of this ...." problem " I need to have real facts...or in the future anything I talk about or try to bring attention to will go into the LOONY bin....And I'll be put in the same catagory of gooney birds that seem to populate this type of thread ...

Facts and proof and rational argument ...not sensational allegations are is what is needed if you wish to get the right people invloved in a cause .
NOT BULLSHIT like this ...this only gets you luaghed out of the office and your mail thrown into the trash .

but typical for nation states ....its what 25 pages ? ....of horeshit bullshit and moreshit piled high and deep ..

Imagine if it were a serious subject .


I on the other hand will continue to try to hold the govenment accountable for what I can prove . Or I will help those trying to get derminations of the legal or military staus of the detainees. we do have some supreme court cases pending.

But shit like this hurts not helps the cause .


http://www.cageprisoners.com/campaigns.php?cat=1

sure ....these people will be taken very seriously ...:rolleyes:

Asking questions and thinking hurts the cause? Then I'm not sure its a cause I want to be a part of. Besides, I think all people have the right to a trial, and that physical torture should be banned in ANY case, whether you're 14 or 45 is a horrible idea because it is NOT an effective method of extracting information anyway. Also, the people in the prisons being tortured no longer have guns because theyve been apprehended, no matter what age they are, and that too is a fact, jack.

Children carrying AK 47's and participating in armed conflict or suicide bombings need only to be shot just like anyother combatant.

you of course are more than within your rights if you feel you can survive long enough to give them a nice big kiss and a hug and make them all better .

If I am at the wrong end of a " childs " rifle ..I could care less about special treatment..all I want is a nice tight group at the center of mass ...then I want the head of the idiots who sent him out to fight put on a stick in a public square .
Get off your cowboy horse; This thread isn't about shooting back at children shooting at you. We're talking about CHILDREN being tortured while in detention...

Get off your cowboy horse; This thread isn't about shooting back at children shooting at you. We're talking about children being tortured while in detention...

Which no one has proved is happening.

Which no one has proved is happening.
Yeah.... and Father Christmas exists as well...

Get off your cowboy horse; This thread isn't about shooting back at children shooting at you. We're talking about children being tortured while in detention...


Did you read the whole thread ? I did .

So you are saying ?

http://blog.aclu.org/index.php?/archives/2005/11.html

I read this and contribute the ACLU...so please dont tell me about who's being tortured...

NO PROOF OF TORTURE OF A CHILD IN IN EXISTANCE only UNFOUNDED allegations that those that actually do more than bullshit on a forum are trying to prove ..one way or another .


I'm more concerned with the holding of these terorist and other suspects without a mechanism to determine their guilt or innocence ..I do not need sensationalist claims and cry baby coddling of these so called " children " to motivate me .

And TORTURE ...also being a relitive term...do you mean physical punishment ? A nail in the balls ? electrodes up the anus ? Or humiliation and confinement ? What torture ?

Again show proof ..so far no one has found any...but a couple released detainees are selling books about the experiance...but again what proof ?

We want some if it exist so those responsible can be held accountable .


7 – Recommendations
US authorities should:
- Release all the Guantánamo detainees unless they are to be given fair trials in US courts in accordance with international law and without recourse to the death penalty;
- Close the Guantánamo detention facility and open up all US ‘war on terror’ detention facilities to external independent scrutiny;
- Officially and publicly condemn torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and order that these practices cease, making clear that they are prohibited absolutely and will not be tolerated;
- Promptly, impartially and effectively investigate all allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in Guantánamo and in US custody elsewhere;
- Ensure that anyone responsible for having committed, ordered or authorized torture or other ill-treatment be brought to justice in a fair trial according to international law;
- Ensure that all the Guantánamo detainees are afforded appropriate medical care
- Ensure that all the Guantánamo detainees are allowed adequate contact with their families;
- Ensure that families of the detainees are kept fully informed of their legal status, health and well-being;
- Set up an independent commission of inquiry into all aspects of the USA’s "war on terror" detention policies and practices;
- Provide UNHCR with prompt and unhindered access to the nine men currently held in Camp Iguana and cooperate with the agency to finding a durable solution to the plight of these individuals that addresses their protection needs and takes into account their specific situation on a case-by-case basis;
- Provide a full list of all those detained by the US as part of the ‘war on terror’ in Guantánamo and elsewhere.
********



Is this realistic ? The US is a sovergn country is it not ? I suppose if it CHOOSES to comply with amnesty international ..in some cases..it may not be a bad thing...BUT the security of the US comes first . If disclosure puts people at risk then as long as there are internal US safe guards for the human rights issues involved ..like military tribunals at the very least..then I will be satisfied...oversite is needed and accountability .

Torture of children, first where is the proof??? Second what is the definition of torture here?? Vigorous interrogation is fine and needed to get information that is needed to continue to persecute these terrorists around the world, you remember the ones that want to kill us because we are not Muslims. These so called children would not think twice about killing you is they got the chance, wake up. How quick people are to forget the lessons of 9/11. :sniper:

I do not need sensationalist claims and cry baby coddling of these so called " children " to motivate me .
They are children, you may stop with the ""

Again show proof
Your arrogance (or is it naivety?) amazes me... How can there be physical evidence if no one can register what is going on inside? Maybe the US government should allow the UN inside, to prove its self-righteousness, like it has demanded from Iran to do with its nuclear facilities. I don't think the American soldiers will do the same mistake again of taking the same pictures to send for Xmas to their mums and friends... Solitary confinement, humiliation, separation from your family, no legal support... All this is enough to drive anyone mad after a while, particularly if they're innocent and can't see a way out.

Now it's all happening in the shadows. It has happened before, more than once, so there is no reason why we should believe the US government when it says it won't happen again. Why should we trust a government who has been proven over and over again as compulsive liars, to the point that it is even lying to its own allies about CIA flights over Europe, when this is in direct breach of international conventions? Your government LIES to its allies... Instead of defending your flag, your country and your values, you choose to defend hypocrites, torturers and murderers, using CHILDREN as scapegoats. You are the shame of the American nation...

They are children, you may stop with the ""


If he or she is old enough to participate in a hostile action while using either a firearm or a bomb ..he/;she is no longer a child ...they become a target to be destroyed on the battlfield ...now what part of that do you not understand ?

If they are captured in the act of taking aggressive action against the military and are captured the are NOT children ..they are enemy combatants and become prisoners .

CHILDHOOD ended when they picked up a rifle or carried a bomb .

Thats reality .

If a 13 to 16 year old criminal enters a store and kills all the patrons after taking the money ...he is tried as an ADULT .

What part of this has you confused ?

Being a " CHILD " is not a free pass . You may just be a smaller target thats IT .

Torture of children, first where is the proof??? Second what is the definition of torture here?? Vigorous interrogation is fine and needed to get information that is needed to continue to persecute these terrorists around the world, you remember the ones that want to kill us because we are not Muslims.
I H8t you all, your comments are beyond absurd. Firstly, the problem is that there is no solid proof of anything, because hardly anything that occurs at Guantanamo is disclosed for "intelligence purposes", including whether or not prisoners are tortured. Since they apparently have no Constitutional rights, it's a good bet that some inhumane shit is going on over there, and this article only makes that seem more likely.
??...These so called children would not think twice about killing you is they got the chance, wake up. How quick people are to forget the lessons of 9/11. :sniper:
To echo your comment from above, where is the proof? Without proper criminal procedures or a chance to challenge their detention in a just way (the court-ordered review processes were quite botched), there's no justification for labelling these children as terrorists, because there is no solid proof that they are involved in terrorist activities. It doesn't matter how likely it may be that they are conspiring to attack, because it has not been properly proven. How disgusting it is to see these prisoners not being given a fair chance and people like you thinking nothing of it, even condoning it, without any respect for the beliefs that the United States was founded on, and unfoundedly labelling all those held in captivity as 100% guaranteed terrorists.

If he or she is old enough to participate in a hostile action while using either a firearm or a bomb ..he/;she is no longer a child ...they become a target to be destroyed on the battlfield ...now what part of that do you not understand ?

If they are captured in the act of taking aggressive action against the military and are captured the are NOT children ..they are enemy combatants and become prisoners .

CHILDHOOD ended when they picked up a rifle or carried a bomb .

Thats reality .

If a 13 to 16 year old criminal enters a store and kills all the patrons after taking the money ...he is tried as an ADULT .

What part of this has you confused ?

Being a " CHILD " is not a free pass . You may just be a smaller target thats IT .
You sound like a Nazi. Actually, you sound just like the terrorists you're fighting. You've become like them. They've already won.

You sound like a Nazi. Actually, you sound just like the terrorists you're fighting. You've become like them. They've already won.

Well if a child comes up to me strapped with a bomb and tells me I am going to die, I sure as hell am not going to give that child a hug and a cookie.

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece

Couldn't care less.

The contributions to the thread thus far simply serve to underscore what I've already known about American people for quite some time, never mind their government or the current administration. Charmed, I'm not.

First of all what Constitutional rights do they have, last time ( and every time) I have looked at the constitution it applies to the citizens of the United States of America, and not someone that is not a citizen of the United Sates, or nut case terrorist of another nation. Rules of war and the rule that govern enemy combatants are completely different. And don’t even try to spout the Geneva Convention accords, because those only apply to “uniformed” members of a nation and not a group of terrorists.
I am sure some inhuman stuff happens, and the US gets condemned each and every time, but where is the condemnation when these terrorists kill, murder, rape and torture people, but I guess you think it is ok for these @ss holes to cut off someone’s head with a dull saw. I really don’t care what they do to them down there, if the results save just one innocent life then it was worth it, and if it prevents another attack like 9/11 anyplace in the world even better.
There is also precedent here, things like GITMO, happened during WWII several times, both in the US and England, only difference was during WWII they were put to death

To echo your comment from above, where is the proof? Without proper criminal procedures or a chance to challenge their detention in a just way (the court-ordered review processes were quite botched), there's no justification for labelling these children as terrorists, because there is no solid proof that they are involved in terrorist activities.

They have no right to legal representation, and that again goes back to WWII, Presidential discretion, included in the forum intelligence act, war powers act, as well as several others. These terrorists were caught on the battle field, they are terrorists, the military has the evidence, and a military court will decide, little known fact, the military tribunal has released a good many of then after review of the evidence, so the ones there now are there for a reason, and so much the better, makes less of them to plan and carry out a terrorist attack.

Torture of children, first where is the proof??? Second what is the definition of torture here?? Vigorous interrogation is fine and needed to get information that is needed to continue to persecute these terrorists around the world, you remember the ones that want to kill us because we are not Muslims. These so called children would not think twice about killing you is they got the chance, wake up. How quick people are to forget the lessons of 9/11. :sniper:
Firstly; Shut the Fuck Up Troll.



If he or she is old enough to participate in a hostile action while using either a firearm or a bomb ..he/;she is no longer a child ...they become a target to be destroyed on the battlfield ...now what part of that do you not understand ?

If they are captured in the act of taking aggressive action against the military and are captured the are NOT children ..they are enemy combatants and become prisoners .

CHILDHOOD ended when they picked up a rifle or carried a bomb .

Thats reality .

If a 13 to 16 year old criminal enters a store and kills all the patrons after taking the money ...he is tried as an ADULT .

What part of this has you confused ?

Being a " CHILD " is not a free pass . You may just be a smaller target thats IT .
Yes but How many US courts allow having a pole shoved up your ass as punishment, Tell ya' what go out their and Torture an Iraqi child, and tell us how you feel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I H8t you all
Torture of children, first where is the proof??? Second what is the definition of torture here?? Vigorous interrogation is fine and needed to get information that is needed to continue to persecute these terrorists around the world, you remember the ones that want to kill us because we are not Muslims. These so called children would not think twice about killing you is they got the chance, wake up. How quick people are to forget the lessons of 9/11.

Firstly; Shut the Fuck Up Troll.

First of all but hole, do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Should a solder not shoot someone with a gun or bomb because they are 14,15,16, at what age is it acceptable for a solder to shoot someone that is trying to kill him/her.
Take it from someone that has been there, the majority of them would kill you and your family without even thinking about it. So @ss wipe you should shut the fuck up until you know hat your talking about.

Quote:
If he or she is old enough to participate in a hostile action while using either a firearm or a bomb ..he/;she is no longer a child ...they become a target to be destroyed on the battlfield ...now what part of that do you not understand ?

If they are captured in the act of taking aggressive action against the military and are captured the are NOT children ..they are enemy combatants and become prisoners .

CHILDHOOD ended when they picked up a rifle or carried a bomb .

Thats reality .

If a 13 to 16 year old criminal enters a store and kills all the patrons after taking the money ...he is tried as an ADULT .

What part of this has you confused ?

Being a " CHILD " is not a free pass . You may just be a smaller target thats IT .
Yes but How many US courts allow having a pole shoved up your ass as punishment, Tell ya' what go out their and Torture an Iraqi child, and tell us how you feel.


Again you an ass, get a grip and take off your rose colored glasses and try to see the world as it is. Believe me they do much worse thing to those they capture, and eventually kill. Do things go to far at times, yes they sure do, and when it happens action is taken. As I said I could careless about these terrorist, what ever it takes to get information to save the lives of others.

Believe me they do much worse thing to those they capture, and eventually kill. Do things go to far at times, yes they sure do, and when it happens action is taken. As I said I could careless about these terrorist, what ever it takes to get information to save the lives of others.

Ok, Frist Edit your post so I can Quote you with out going through miles of text.

Secondly, maybe I'm just crazy, but most child soldiers (not that I’m assuming.) aren't high enough up, to know any thing but basic plans literally right before they are carried out. It’s not like Osama is an 8 year boy.

Thirdly, I don't care if they do worse to our troops, if we say were better than them then we should start acting like it.

get a grip and take off your rose colored glasses and try to see the world as it is.
Zoom!... did ya hear that? that was the sound of you're insult going over my head!

You an ass
Uga. Uga. to you too.

Well if a child comes up to me strapped with a bomb and tells me I am going to die, I sure as hell am not going to give that child a hug and a cookie.
Well, you better get used to the possibility of a child coming up to you strapped with a bomb because it can only get worse. Like with 9/11, it's only a matter of time until they strike you again - who knows - with a nuclear bomb. Then you will expect the world to cry for the US victims once again, forgetting that all your crimes only served to give even more resolve for the terrorists to seek their revenge. You know what I tell a child that burned its fingers on matches? Next time, don't play with matches.

But you simply don't get it, do you? You don't understand that you cannot win these people because they have nothing to loose. They will find new recruits with more ease than the US will ever do because they are fighting for personal and/or religious values and/or their own freedom from American influence in the region. They are not like your soldiers, who are mainly outcasts of your society and the poor who enlist to escape unemployment. These are real people, fighting to avenge a mother who was blasted by an American bomb or a brother who was shot on the back of the head or an innocent uncle who was tortured in one of your jails. Everyday you commit an atrocity, you are making them stronger.

Nobody sees in America the beacon of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty anymore. Nobody talks of the Land of Hope. You have replaced Dreams with Nightmares and you are happy to spread them all over the world. The whole world is turning its back on the US. You have been lying to your allies and you're loosing them. All over Europe, Asia and Africa people are SICK with the US government's arrogance and double standards on the war on terror, on Kyoto, on Guantanamo, on Abu Ghraib... I feel sorry for my American friends who live ashamed of their own Government and have to watch helpless, while their flag burns.

How long do you think you can endure a war like this? How long, until the waste of resources and insecurity takes its toll on the economy and the people? How long, until the terrorists strike again? You see, they are patient, they are strong-minded and they will fight for decades, if necessary. Remember Vietnam? This is much worse and will get much worse than Vietnam. You have started a war without end, because there is no Nation to destroy, conquer or control. You have thrown yourselves in a bottomless pit... So continue detaining and torturing children; you are digging your own grave...

They may not have tactical information, but they can point out there leaders, base of operations, other members of there cell and so on, work from the small fish and you get to the bigger fish. I do care about what they do to our troops, and if doing something that is harsh helps them live go for it. We are better then them, we do not target civilians (with exceptions, and there are always rouge solders and units that cross the line, it happens in war) but on a whole the US fighting man/woman is fair honest and caring and does his/her best to help. The worst thing about this whole Iraq thing is none of the good that is being done is shown, only the bad. Repairing the electrical grid, water system, building hospitals, and the medical help and aid that is given is not shown, helping the average Iraqi is almost always over looked ,and all the focus is on the bad and negative, so fact is 90% of the public does not know about it.

get a grip and take off your rose colored glasses and try to see the world as it is.

Was not an insult, was a suggestion.

Uga. Uga. to you too.

Can dish it out, but hate it when it is tossed back at you….

Well, you better get used to the possibility of a child coming up to you strapped with a bomb because it can only get worse. Like with 9/11, it's only a matter of time until they strike you again - who knows - with a nuclear bomb. Then you will expect the world to cry for the US victims once again, forgetting that all your crimes only served to give even more resolve for the terrorists to seek their revenge. You know what I tell a child that burned its fingers on matches? Next time, don't play with matches.

But you simply don't get it, do you? You don't understand that you cannot win these people because they have nothing to loose. They will find new recruits with more ease than the US will ever do because they are fighting for personal and/or religious values and/or their own freedom from American influence in the region. They are not like your soldiers, who are mainly outcasts of your society and the poor who enlist to escape unemployment. These are real people, fighting to avenge a mother who was blasted by an American bomb or a brother who was shot on the back of the head or an innocent uncle who was tortured in one of your jails. Everyday you commit an atrocity, you are making them stronger.

Nobody sees in America the beacon of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty anymore. Nobody talks of the Land of Hope. You have replaced Dreams with Nightmares and you are happy to spread them all over the world. The whole world is turning its back on the US. You have been lying to your allies and you're loosing them. All over Europe, Asia and Africa people are SICK with the US government's arrogance and double standards on the war on terror, on Kyoto, on Guantanamo, on Abu Ghraib... I feel sorry for my American friends who live ashamed of their own Government and have to watch helpless, while their flag burns.

How long do you think you can endure a war like this? How long, until the waste of resources and insecurity takes its toll on the economy and the people? How long, until the terrorists strike again? You see, they are patient, they are strong-minded and they will fight for decades, if necessary. Remember Vietnam? This is much worse and will get much worse than Vietnam. You have started a war without end, because there is no Nation to destroy, conquer or control. You have thrown yourselves in a bottomless pit... So continue detaining and torturing children; you are digging your own grave...

what a bunch of rubbish. I prefer to be pro-active, not re-active.

what a bunch of rubbish. I prefer to be pro-active, not re-active.
I believe the word you are looking is pre-emptive.

I believe the word you are looking is pre-emptive.
Well maybe he likes to jog?

Well maybe he likes to jog?
:D

Since I don't believe what you do, I am a troll?

Great. No crossing my bridges without payment.

The inflammatory posting is what makes you a troll.

Well if a child comes up to me strapped with a bomb and tells me I am going to die, I sure as hell am not going to give that child a hug and a cookie.

Did these children take part in any combat action? Were they guilty of anything beyond existing and having the wrong parents? If not, then your example is as flat as your reasoning ability.

Did these children take part in any combat action? Were they guilty of anything beyond existing and having the wrong parents? If not, then your example is as flat as your reasoning ability.

I doubt US troops are randomly snatching kids.

I believe the word you are looking is pre-emptive.

Proactive...no hyphen, my bad

Main Entry: pro·ac·tive
Pronunciation: (")prO-'ak-tiv
Function: adjective
1 [1pro-] : relating to, caused by, or being interference between previous learning and the recall or performance of later learning <proactive inhibition of memory>
2 [2pro- + reactive] : acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes

The inflammatory posting is what makes you a troll.

oh so now because I don't believe the majority I am a troll and inflammatory?

oh so now because I don't believe the majority I am a troll and inflammatory?
Oh, yeah if we set you on fire you'd go up like a bucket of gasoline.:D

Oh, yeah if we set you on fire you'd go up like a bucket of gasoline.:D

After bakin in the sun, I think I already went up in flames.

*Looks at thread title, reads article*

*reads first four pages, gets bored*

I have a question for you, apologies if it's been asked in the 10+ pages since I've stopped reading out of disgust, but...

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE TORTURE?
I'm sorry for the huge text, and for the blatant, stupid profanity. But seriously, OP, have some shame. If you're going to accuse someone of torturing children, at least have some fucking background material for it. Furthermore, if any of you say 'zomfgtorture'zbeenprovedatgitmo' show me the photos of people with electrical leads taped to their cocks, show me the evidence. Show me something, rather than blowing one story, admittedly bad, way the fuck out of proportion.

If you haven't guessed, I'm pissed. Even if this is just the NS general forum, I'd expect to see some critical thinking displayed. Sorry if I flamed anyone, but there you go.

[/rant]

*Looks at thread title, reads article*

*reads first four pages, gets bored*

I have a question for you, apologies if it's been asked in the 10+ pages since I've stopped reading out of disgust, but...

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE TORTURE?
I'm sorry for the huge text, and for the blatant, stupid profanity. But seriously, OP, have some shame. If you're going to accuse someone of torturing children, at least have some fucking background material for it. Furthermore, if any of you say 'zomfgtorture'zbeenprovedatgitmo' show me the photos of people with electrical leads taped to their cocks, show me the evidence. Show me something, rather than blowing one story, admittedly bad, way the fuck out of proportion.

If you haven't guessed, I'm pissed. Even if this is just the NS general forum, I'd expect to see some critical thinking displayed. Sorry if I flamed anyone, but there you go.

[/rant]


Well I asked about 25 pages ago multiple times for some proof of anything...but this forum is what it is ... :rolleyes:


Nobody sees in America the beacon of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty anymore. Nobody talks of the Land of Hope. You have replaced Dreams with Nightmares and you are happy to spread them all over the world. The whole world is turning its back on the US. You have been lying to your allies and you're loosing them. All over Europe, Asia and Africa people are SICK with the US government's arrogance and double standards on the war on terror, on Kyoto, on Guantanamo, on Abu Ghraib... I feel sorry for my American friends who live ashamed of their own Government and have to watch helpless, while their flag burns

except for those 14 million illegal immigrants and the millions of others waiting to get here to participate in freedom , democracy and liberty...I might say you have a point .

I'd much rather have an a-hole for a president like Bush, than a sissy president who's afraid to give those orders.

Eh, sorry for that outburst a few posts ago. I just got fed up. I guess I wish that y'all would take a minute to read through the article provided, and think about it before posting. I think we'd have a more intelligent discussion by far if we did that.

Eh, sorry for that outburst a few posts ago. I just got fed up. I guess I wish that y'all would take a minute to read through the article provided, and think about it before posting. I think we'd have a more intelligent discussion by far if we did that.
We'll live. :D

BUSH ROCKS! GET THOSE BASTARDS GEORGE!!:mp5:

BUSH ROCKS! GET THOSE BASTARDS GEORGE!!:mp5:
LOL

We'll live. :D
I kinda figured. But you know, I usually try not to be the kind of Generalite that insults people, posts in huge text and doesn't back up his arguments with fact. But whatever.

If he or she is old enough to participate in a hostile action while using either a firearm or a bomb ..he/;she is no longer a child ...they become a target to be destroyed on the battlfield ...now what part of that do you not understand ?
Incorrect. They are still children.

If they are captured in the act of taking aggressive action against the military and are captured the are NOT children ..they are enemy combatants and become prisoners .
They are still children.
And we don't know if they were ever caught in the act of taking aggressive action against anyone or if they just were sold to the US by bounty-hunters.


CHILDHOOD ended when they picked up a rifle or carried a bomb .

Thats reality .

If a 13 to 16 year old criminal enters a store and kills all the patrons after taking the money ...he is tried as an ADULT .

What part of this has you confused ?
Incorrect. Depends on the state and the country. And he is still a child, even if he is old enough to be criminally responsible.

Being a " CHILD " is not a free pass . You may just be a smaller target thats IT .
Sometimes it can be a free pass. That is not the point. Children can be dangerous as well, if they are armed. That is not the point either.

The point here is that they are still children.


I have a question for you, apologies if it's been asked in the 10+ pages since I've stopped reading out of disgust, but...

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE TORTURE?
I'm sorry for the huge text, and for the blatant, stupid profanity. But seriously, OP, have some shame. If you're going to accuse someone of torturing children, at least have some fucking background material for it.

They include at least 10 detainees still held at the US base in Cuba who were 14 or 15 when they were seized - including child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured.
It doesn't go into details, but there you go.

And solitary confinement may be torture in itself, even more so when used on young children and without any date for release.

allegedly tortured.


Thats proof ?:rolleyes:

Thats proof ?:rolleyes:
No, it's an allegation. Backed up by witness testimony and different reports, but still an allegation.

No, it's an allegation. Backed up by witness testimony and different reports, but still an allegation.


A rather serious allegation, according to our own laws, and the Geneva Convention.

A rather serious allegation, according to our own laws, and the Geneva Convention.
It is indeed, and I believe that it warrants an investigation into the matter.

Proactive...no hyphen, my bad

Main Entry: pro·ac·tive
Pronunciation: (")prO-'ak-tiv
Function: adjective
1 [1pro-] : relating to, caused by, or being interference between previous learning and the recall or performance of later learning <proactive inhibition of memory>
2 [2pro- + reactive] : acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes

1) According to your dictionary, proactive implies "learning and the recall or performance of later learning" something the Bush monarchy is incapable of doing.
2) You are not anticipating future problems, you're creating them.
3) Doing pre-emptive strikes is the only way George Bush knows how to try being proactive.
4) George W Bush probably thinks these two words are synonyms.

I still think the correct word is Pre-emptive, with or without hyphen...

*Looks at thread title, reads article*

*reads first four pages, gets bored*

I have a question for you, apologies if it's been asked in the 10+ pages since I've stopped reading out of disgust, but...

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE TORTURE?

Try reading all the pages... Maybe then you'll understand where torture is. If you cannot read more than 4 pages at a time, without getting "bored", then I am not surprised you cannot understand where torture is...

Nobody sees in America the beacon of Democracy, Freedom and Liberty anymore.
except for those 14 million illegal immigrants...
Which you are planning to criminalise and throw in jail... Some beacon of Freedom for them, hey?

Darwinianmonkeys, what on earth did you post the Lloyd deMause hack job for?
Children who grow up to be Islamic terrorists are products of a misogynist fundamentalist system
This might be true if no one who was raised for instance in a mainstream white US household has ever been caught fighting against the US in Afghanistan, and convicted of crimes in relation to their fundamentalist Islamic terrorist activities and/or all people raised in the circumstances did become Islamic terrorists.
It is not true that all Islamic fundamentalists who engage in violent aggression against the percieved enemies of Islam were raised in a misogynist fundamentalist system. Further I know of no evidence (much less proof) that all people raised as de Mause describes, or even the majority of people so raised grow up to be Islamic terrorists.
So growing up in the circumstance the author refers to is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a child to grow up to be a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist.
Honestly, if I could figure out in a matter of seconds that this statement is provably false yet apparently deMause could not work it out in the entire time since he first came to believe it might be so and the time the text was published, I believe I have very good grounds for questioning the critical reasoning skills of the writer.

The roots of current terrorist attacks lie, I believe, not in this or that American foreign policy error

in Afghanistan, for instance, girls cannot attend schools and women who try to hold jobs or who seem to "walk with pride" are shot.
I cant explain how he screwed this up...
Since I cant ask the author, I'll ask you (you did after al post it, so I gather you found the text credible).
How is it that the contradiction between 'not this or that American foreign policy' and 'restrictions on Afghani women as causes of terrorism' escape your attention?
Did you not realise the restrictions ony existed as a result of Teliban control over Afghanistan, or that the Teliban only had control due to the situation left behind by the Soviets and the US when they disengaged from Afghanistan as a 'defacto battle ground' in the cold war?
Or did you somehow fail to realise the necessary implications of these facts?
I'm astounded that either you or the author wouldnt know these facts or would fail to understand the implications of them. It simply cannot be both true that circumstances that only occured because of US foreign policy are the cause of terrorism and that the foreign policy of the US is not a cause of terrorism...
I honestly cannot get my head around how anyone could possibly read the text and not see this contradiction. I sure as heck do not see how anyone could get to the end of the first paragraph without knowing with absolute certainty that the text is fatally flawed.
The author's claim is that it isnt 'outside political forces' but rather internal familial and social structures, yet proves within the first paragraph that the familial and social structures are not necessary to produce terrorists, nor do terrorists necessarily result in every instance of growing up in such structures. Then he rounds off the first paragraph by making a claim that entails the necessary implication that the US's foreign policy is a factor in producing terrorists...
Honest to goodness, without any 'specialist knowledge' of the subject matter nor anything more than absolute basic-level logic skills, it's not only possible to immediately (and without any particular effot) conclude that the central premise of the text is false, it's virtually impossible to not conclude as much...

I really dont get why you'd post it believing it to be a fatally flawed and astonishingly ridiculous text, but I really dont get how you couldnt have realised that's what it is.... I'm really confused either way. Why did you post it?:confused:
:eek: I'm starting to suspect you might be one of these 'post as if I hold the opposite view in order to undermine it' kinda posters...that would explain more than one mystery...:eek:

Each country has their own statute. Many muslim based governments recognize 14 and 15 as legal to hold jobs, marry, and be soldiers.
Interesting as that might be it doesnt shed any light whatsoever on why you would appeal to some supposed UN convention in order to justify a claim that in the US where minors are defined as persons under 18yrs, any person under 18yrs wouldnt be subject to the legal implications of being a minor.

For one Brunei:

Minimum age for criminal responsibility

52. From the legal point of view, two approaches are possible. Under the French-based Civil and Criminal Codes, a child under the age of 13 is totally free from criminal responsibility. Under Muslim law, physical maturity confers civil and criminal responsibility on a male child. The age of legal majority is therefore considered to be 14-15 years. […]

79. In criminal cases, children are subject to special arrangements. This is because children under 13 years of age are not criminally liable for their actions. […]

http://www.right-to-education.org/content/age/brunei.html
[/QUOTE]
You do realise that persons under 18 that we are discussing the treatment of are not in US custody, in the US's jurisdiction, and are not in any of the places refered to above?
I dont see how you couldnt realise that, but I equally dont see why you would imagine the info you posit in this post is relevent to issue being discussed in the thread....
Just checking, you do realise that rather than the laws of every nation operating everywhere, that nations have jurisdictions in which their laws operate and other nations' laws do not?

You are hypocrits when you want to lable soldiers as children using your definition of what a child is.
What do you mean by 'your'? The definition I am applying for the purposes of determining legal status as either a minor or not minor (aka a child) within the US legal system is the definition that is set forth in US law. I know I had nothing to do with that definition being the one legally recognised in the US legal system, and frankly I'm rather confident that no one else posting in this thread was in any way causally related with the legal definition of a minor in US law....

I didn't post a rant, I posted an article that recognizes exactly what was posted here by someone (maybe you I have forgotten) that being brainwashed is not the "children's" fault. I agree, it isn't.
I didnt notice that the artical recognised that. It's not important either way since the article lacks any credibility anyhow....
Even if it actually were credible, it's not materially relevent in the context of this discussion so far as I can tell. How a child comes to be a child-soldier or a terrorist or a terrorist child-soldier seems to me to offer no insight into whether or not a particular person meets the legal definition of a minor as applies within US law. The text offered no insight into legal classifications of minors as applies to US law, no evidence or indicator that the conditions at Guantanamo Bay are appropriate or necessary or desirable conditions in which to detain any person under the age of 18, nor any evidence or indicator that holding such persons (or indeed any persons) for years on end without recourse to a timely trial....so far as I can tell, even if it were credible, it doesnt say anything whatsoever that offers insight into the issues that are relevent to the discussion.

Is it too much to ask that people understand that we are not dealing with children, but only by the definition that we have ourselves in our own societies?
We are dealing with minors so far as the application of US law is concerned.
We are dealing with children so far as culpability is concerned.
We are dealing with children in respect of certain biological implications of the human maturation/life cycle...
So far as I can tell nothing you've posted about the persons (under 18) concerned changes the fact that they should not be where they are.

The posters that want to play on the sympathies of the "poor children" do not want to recognize that these are soldiers and this is war.
'Play on sympathies' of the poor children' is not the issue. The issue is the that due to their age these people are subject to certain provisions that apply within the legal system operating in the jurisdiction in which they are being held, that there is good reason to believe they are not culpable and no indication that there is any reason to take a contrary veiw of their culpability, and that whatever their socialisation, they are children in crucial respects that are not ameanable to alteration via socialisation.

Their age is irrelevant considering when their own societies deem them as adults. Yet we do recognize them as children whether their own cultures do or not.
When their societies deem them adults is irrelevent to determining their legal status (re being or not being minors) as it applies to the US justice system, doesnt imply the necessity, desirability or acceptableness of their current detention circumstances, nor does it alter in any way the biologically determined aspects of pre-adults that are significant factors in the particular needs and vulnerabilities of minors.


The article is to point out exactly the mind set we are dealing with, these are not "children" as we know "children" to be. You cannot ignore that fact.
The artical is frankly not worth space it takes on the NS web server.
As to ignoring stuff, has it occured to you that maybe it isnt everyone but you, but rather you?
For instance please explain to me how you believe you know what I know children to be.
I strongly suspect that your understanding of child is not the understanding I have. It may well be that we are not dealing with what you 'know children to be' but are dealing with what I know children to be.
I comprehend the arguments you have made about the child status or not of the persons discussed, I am aware of the things you seem to believe I am ignoring, the issue is that these facts are superflouous with regards to my views on the wrongness of treating this minors as they are being and have been treated.

Ok last post, really I have to go

;) Haha, regardless of point of view, I doubt there are many N.S generalites who havent had their share of 'truly my last post for now-itus'... ;)
I reckon it's something in the water - I dont care how illogical that is given the geographic distribution of posters....I've caught myself reading/posting one last thread half a dozen hours after my first decision to get off line :eek: and get on with other stuff (oddly enough the less desirable the 'other stuff' I ought to be doing is the worse my case of 'last post for now-itus....surely just a coincidence of course:rolleyes: ). So anyway as unlikely as the something in the water theory may seem, I gotta have someway to justify my inability to just log off...something in the water is my excuse and I'm sticking with it... :D

If a child has been brought up in the middle of poverty by fundamentalists, brainwashed with hate words and given a gun by adults, and then burns my house AND kills my mum, I would ask to talk to that child and understand why she did it. I would not support its imprisonment without trial or it's torture or execution EVER.


Take off those rose coloured glasses and step into the real word.:rolleyes:

Take off those rose coloured glasses and step into the real world.
Don't expect me to step into your Hell... I'm quite happy where I am, thanks.

Any persons taking or showing aggression against an opposing force is considered just that “an act of aggression.” It does not matter what your age is. You can be seven, seventeen, or seventy. It is an aggressive act and is do be dealt with accordingly. We seem to have conflicting reports as to the position of these so-called children. In some reports it says that are just that, children caught at the wrong place at the wrong time. Other reports say they were child soldiers. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that these children were tortured. Allegedly is what it says and that means it came from an unconfirmed source. Knowing how the military works it comes from an individual of lesser service that is unhappy with how he/she is being treated him/herself.
We seem to be losing sight of the fact that these children are not afforded the right to legal council as they are now classified as prisoners of war. Meaning they were captured not arrested. Being put in solitary confinement is in fact not an act of torture, but an act of confinement just as it states. It is used more to break the morale of the individual. It makes that person aware that he/she has limited to no control over who they now are.
Torture is just that, torture and that means any form of physical, or psychological harm to ones self. Torture is used to extract information from individuals that is deemed important. This is used in extreme cases. If you honestly believe that the military is openly torturing children for their own amusement then you are sadly mistaken. I do not know how many times a soldier has been wounded or even killed coming to the aid of a child.

We seem to have conflicting reports as to the position of these so-called children..
You've just made your argument completely redundant...

Any persons taking or showing aggression against an opposing force is considered just that “an act of aggression.” It does not matter what your age is. You can be seven, seventeen, or seventy. It is an aggressive act and is do be dealt with accordingly. We seem to have conflicting reports as to the position of these so-called children. In some reports it says that are just that, children caught at the wrong place at the wrong time. Other reports say they were child soldiers. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that these children were tortured. Allegedly is what it says and that means it came from an unconfirmed source. Knowing how the military works it comes from an individual of lesser service that is unhappy with how he/she is being treated him/herself.
We seem to be losing sight of the fact that these children are not afforded the right to legal council as they are now classified as prisoners of war. Meaning they were captured not arrested. Being put in solitary confinement is in fact not an act of torture, but an act of confinement just as it states. It is used more to break the morale of the individual. It makes that person aware that he/she has limited to no control over who they now are.
Torture is just that, torture and that means any form of physical, or psychological harm to ones self. Torture is used to extract information from individuals that is deemed important. This is used in extreme cases. If you honestly believe that the military is openly torturing children for their own amusement then you are sadly mistaken. I do not know how many times a soldier has been wounded or even killed coming to the aid of a child.
Some corrections:
*A 7-year old is a child.
*A 7-year old carrying a gun is still a child.
*A detained 14-year old is still a child.
*To alledge = To assert to be true, without proof. The sources have been confirmed.
*The sources are lawyers, reports from organisations like the ICRC, and eyewitness testimony from former detainees, guards and interregators.
*The children are classified as Illegal Combatants, not Prisoners Of War.
*Being put in solitary confinement may be an act of torture in itself.
*If the children are tortured, it does not happen in the open as Guantanamo is a closed environment.

Some corrections:
*To alledge = To assert to be true, without proof. The sources have been confirmed.
*The sources are lawyers, reports from organisations like the ICRC, and eyewitness testimony from former detainees, guards and interregators.
*The children are classified as Illegal Combatants, not Prisoners Of War.


I stand corrected on this I thank you for pointing this out, but as I said;Knowing how the military works it comes from an individual of lesser service that is unhappy with how he/she is being treated him/herself. As for other detainees I give that as much truth as saying some of those detainees were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What I am failing to see is this. How and who do we classify as a child?
Was it not in colonial times the age of marriage of some women thirteen? Upon marriage were they no longer a child but an adult as they entered womanhood.
A person with special needs is in body twenty-one, but in mind ten we classify that person as a child because they are incapable of taking cars of themselves. Wait there is more. A child of fourteen walks into a convenience store to rob it, and while committing this act shoots and kills the owner. How is this person tried in a court of law, as a child or an adult?
When a child commits an act of violence, aggression against another person with the sole purpose of killing another they are fully aware of what they are doing and so have left childhood and have entered adulthood. There is no age limit on acts of violence. To say that if a child does you harm you would want to know why is valid, but to still believe that person is still a child after they have committed such an act is flawed. I have been to places where in fact most children run the streets and commit crimes to survive. Some countries the children have to grow up fast or fall to the wayside. We sit safe in our homes safe that there will be no bombs going off today. We watch our violence on television not in our front yards. We now where we will be tomorrow or the next day and our little world is safe.

um, we are in a war and they are prisoners of war. Its fair game and I think people forget that.

um, we are in a war and they are prisoners of war. Its fair game and I think people forget that.
They do not have the same rights as POWs, being "enemy combatants".

They do not have the same rights as POWs, being "enemy combatants".
See, even more reason why they are allowed to be torture. The US has to get Israeli here.

What I am failing to see is this. How and who do we classify as a child?
National law. International law. According to the UN convention on the rights of the child, the general rule is that a person below 18 years of age is a child.

Was it not in colonial times the age of marriage of some women thirteen? Upon marriage were they no longer a child but an adult as they entered womanhood.
A person with special needs is in body twenty-one, but in mind ten we classify that person as a child because they are incapable of taking cars of themselves.
An adult with special needs - not classified as a child, but as an adult who may not have capacity to enter into legally binding agreements or contracts.

Wait there is more. A child of fourteen walks into a convenience store to rob it, and while committing this act shoots and kills the owner. How is this person tried in a court of law, as a child or an adult?
The age of criminal responsibility varies from country to country (and even state to state in the US). However, the person is still regarded as a child.

When a child commits an act of violence, aggression against another person with the sole purpose of killing another they are fully aware of what they are doing and so have left childhood and have entered adulthood.
No, this is very uncertain. A 7-year old boy who shoots a person might not fully understand the consequences of his actions. He might not understand that death is permanent. He is nevertheless still a child.

An act of violence does not equal an automatic passage into manhood.

There is no age limit on acts of violence. To say that if a child does you harm you would want to know why is valid, but to still believe that person is still a child after they have committed such an act is flawed. I have been to places where in fact most children run the streets and commit crimes to survive. Some countries the children have to grow up fast or fall to the wayside. We sit safe in our homes safe that there will be no bombs going off today. We watch our violence on television not in our front yards. We now where we will be tomorrow or the next day and our little world is safe.
It is a sad state of affairs, indeed. However, that does not give us the right to mistreat children, does it?
um, we are in a war and they are prisoners of war. Its fair game and I think people forget that.
You forget that they aren't prisoners of war - they are "illegal combatents".
Had they only been classified as prisoners of war, then it would have been so much easier.

See, even more reason why they are allowed to be torture. The US has to get Israeli here.

You know, for a country proclaiming to be better than these Muslim 'Savages' and being the beacon of freedom and democracy and decency in the world - you're not really, are you?

You know, for a country proclaiming to be better than these Muslim 'Savages' and being the beacon of freedom and democracy and decency in the world - you're not really, are you?
yes we are

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece
Can you show evidence of torture? As far as I can see, the "torture" at Guantanamo has consisted mostly of female contractors in bikini's giving lapdances to offend Muslim sensibilities. I imagine most of the people on this board would enjoy such "torture".

If you have evidence of real torture - electrocution, beating, cutting, etc - then please post it. But I've yet to see any.

Can you show evidence of torture? As far as I can see, the "torture" at Guantanamo has consisted mostly of female contractors in bikini's giving lapdances to offend Muslim sensibilities. I imagine most of the people on this board would enjoy such "torture".

If you have evidence of real torture - electrocution, beating, cutting, etc - then please post it. But I've yet to see any.
No evidence yet, but plenty of allegations backed up by witnesses and reports (read the thread) - enough to warrant an investigation.

Oh, and prolonged isolation may be torture. REAL torture.
yes we are
Not you! You're just certifiable.

No evidence yet, but plenty of allegations backed up by witnesses and reports (read the thread) - enough to warrant an investigation.

Oh, and prolonged isolation may be torture. REAL torture.
Witnesses and reports? Sorry, I don't have time to read 29 pages of writing to find what you're talking about. Could you quote specifics? I recall the UN recommending it be closed down - but the people who said that never actually visited it.

I recall several US Congressmen visiting Guantanamo last year, and they said the treatment was much better than any inmate in a regular US prison got. They get three large square meals a day, they aren't beaten, they get their own Koran and prayer rugs; as far as I can tell no torture is going on.

If you want an investigation, fine, but the UN creeps who do it should actually visit the place they're supposed to be investigating this time. Seriously.

Is prolonged isolation torture? Depends on how long. Are they keeping them isolated for months or years at a time? If so, that shouldn't be happening. But two days without human contact isn't so bad; they can tough it out, they aren't newborns.

Not you! You're just certifiable.
certifiable what exactly?

See, even more reason why they are allowed to be torture. The US has to get Israeli here.
Torture is agains Human Rights. No one can legally deny anyone those rights, whatever the circumstances are...

yes we are
What? Savages?

What? Savages?
Don't feed the idiot/troll.

Bush Is a horrible person.
Did you hear his favorite time being President?
It was "My fave time was when I caught a seven lbs. fish in my lake!!!!"
WHAT AN IDIOT!!!:eek: :gundge: :mp5: :mp5: IMPEACH THIS LUNACY

What? Savages?
no better than the savages

no better than the savages

Quite right. You are indeed no better than the 'savages'.

Witnesses and reports? Sorry, I don't have time to read 29 pages of writing to find what you're talking about. Could you quote specifics? I recall the UN recommending it be closed down - but the people who said that never actually visited it.
Here's from the article in the OP:
Lawyers in London estimate that more than 60 detainees held at the terrorists' prison camp were boys under 18 when they were captured.

They include at least 10 detainees still held at the US base in Cuba who were 14 or 15 when they were seized - including child soldiers who were held in solitary confinement, repeatedly interrogated and allegedly tortured.
As for other sources, search the thread. But it seems to be statements from former detainees, former interregators and guards, and reports from NGOs backing up the allegations.

I recall several US Congressmen visiting Guantanamo last year, and they said the treatment was much better than any inmate in a regular US prison got. They get three large square meals a day, they aren't beaten, they get their own Koran and prayer rugs; as far as I can tell no torture is going on.

If you want an investigation, fine, but the UN creeps who do it should actually visit the place they're supposed to be investigating this time. Seriously.
But they didn't get to go where they wanted, they only got to see some parts of the complex - so they felt that it was better to refuse to go to Guantanamo rather then being presented with a charade. I can understand them.

Is prolonged isolation torture? Depends on how long. Are they keeping them isolated for months or years at a time? If so, that shouldn't be happening. But two days without human contact isn't so bad; they can tough it out, they aren't newborns.
In this case, it might be months or years. And that is problematic.

Quite right. You are indeed no better than the 'savages'.
I meant no, we are better than them. Do we behead people? no

Quite right. You are indeed no better than the 'savages'.
:D

This article is sensationalist bullshit .

I have spent the six hours trying to fact check it..

I have come accross over a thousand pages of aticles and sories about Groups that are involved in attempting to protect and represent these " children " NONE of the facts match antything in this article .
Wow! I'm no search engine wizz so I guess I must have struck it lucky, it seems I got further with the less than 6 minutes I spent.
I'm astounded...
Your luck is in though, I'm happy to share a few tips with you based on my own relatively stellar success.
Go to google type in "Mohamed el Gharani" - and you should get your first fact match
then give "Omar Khadr" - you ought to be on a roll now...
once you've tired of purusing the US legal documents that confirm Omar was, under US law, legally a minor when he was detained, you could move onto "Sami el Hajj"
Hopefully that'll keep you busy until you get a reply from Reprieve since that was undoubtably your first stop and even if you didnt shoot an email off to them requesting further information then, no doubt at some point during 6 hours of searching you figured the meager time it would take to do so would be at least as profitable as the many hours spent searching without so much as a single match made between the artical's contents and the whatever information it was that you did come across in half a dozen hours of searching.

Anyway, again I really am astonished at the apparent discrepancy between your success and mine...not to mention somewhat surprised that you spent 6 hours searching about apparently without trying a single one of the named detainees in the artical...


...I'm really puzzled as to why you didnt start with them rather than apparently missing them out altogether. I'm even more curious about what you did use as search terms...not just because I fail to percieve 6 hours worth of possible leads in the artical, but more to the point because I fail to see how conducting a google search on every single word in the text, one at a time would manage to fill 6 hours...

Did you just type words or letters in at random, or did you only type a letter every half hour...are you sure your computer was actually turned on and connected to the internet...? It's a mystery....!:confused:

Before I put my credibility on the line and make accusations or attempt to point the proper people in the direction of this ...." problem " I need to have real facts...or in the future anything I talk about or try to bring attention to will go into the LOONY bin....And I'll be put in the same catagory of gooney birds that seem to populate this type of thread ...
I see your point, it's bad enough that based on your efforts today there is some doubt you could search your way out of a wet paper bag even with the aid of a state of the art Global Positioning device....I can see why you'd not want to slip from apparently search-illiterate to loony...

I meant no, we are better than them. Do we behead people? no

No, of course not. You just imprison them without due legal course, torture them, put them into solitary confinement for extended periods of time, release no evidence to state why they have been detained and when you do release them you make no apologies.

Oh, I'm sorry, what was the difference again?

I meant no, we are better than them. Do we behead people? no
What's most cruel? (both are equally barbaric)

1. Beheading someone (death comes in seconds)
2. Torturing someone for hours/days until they die (like it has been done in Abu Ghraib)

No, of course not. You just imprison them without due legal course, torture them, put them into solitary confinement for extended periods of time, release no evidence to state why they have been detained and when you do release them you make no apologies.

Oh, I'm sorry, what was the difference again?
And, dare I say it, shooting innocent people (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484931)?

No, actually, I don't dare. So ignore what I just posted ;)

First of all what Constitutional rights do they have, last time ( and every time) I have looked at the constitution it applies to the citizens of the United States of America, and not someone that is not a citizen of the United Sates, or nut case terrorist of another nation.
Really? That is weird. When you say Constitution you do mean the United States Constitution?
Mmm, if so I'm mystified, there is only one of them isnt there? I wonder if the one you've looked at had a XIV Amendment that is different to the one I've looked at, or if it simply didnt have a XIV Amendment...or are all non-US citizens not persons?

I doubt US troops are randomly snatching kids.
On the basis of that being your opinion you must be confident that there was some reason to detain and further investigate 5% of the those detained and intered at Guantanamo....good on you for looking on the bright side, you know seeing the cup as 5% full instead of 95% empty...

We sit here and talk about the children that are being mistreated and/or tortured by the military. They are classified as illegal combatants and should be treated better. Let me throw this out: What about the non-combatants that are/were taken by the Iraqis and shot in the head or beheaded? What about the non-combatants that have just disappeared without a trace. Female combatants being captured and raped. Soldiers videotaped are being dragged through the streets after being killed. Videotapes of these people shown with their captors. The mistreatment and abuse goes both ways.
Oh right these people are adults and knew/know the dangers they placed themselves right? It bothers our sense of dignity knowing it happens.
To sit and try to justify the abuse of these children or to condemn it is pointless. The fact that if a child picks up a weapon and shoots to kill someone without the full understanding of its impact it is meaningless to me. Given the circumstances the outcome would be the same. Whether you fully understand it or not if it is you against me I will win.

I've said it once and I'll say it agian if you star pulling the shit that the terroists do then, YOU ARE ONE

We sit here and talk about the children that are being mistreated and/or tortured by the military. They are classified as illegal combatants and should be treated better. Let me throw this out: What about the non-combatants that are/were taken by the Iraqis and shot in the head or beheaded? What about the non-combatants that have just disappeared without a trace. Female combatants being captured and raped. Soldiers videotaped are being dragged through the streets after being killed. Videotapes of these people shown with their captors. The mistreatment and abuse goes both ways.
Oh right these people are adults and knew/know the dangers they placed themselves right? It bothers our sense of dignity knowing it happens.
To sit and try to justify the abuse of these children or to condemn it is pointless. The fact that if a child picks up a weapon and shoots to kill someone without the full understanding of its impact it is meaningless to me. Given the circumstances the outcome would be the same. Whether you fully understand it or not if it is you against me I will win.

So the fact that the enemy does it means you too can, and should, do it? So...what's the difference between the two of you then?

What's most cruel? (both are equally barbaric)

1. Beheading someone (death comes in seconds)
2. Torturing someone for hours/days until they die (like it has been done in Abu Ghraib)

I don't understand this question... :mad: Stupid love-dove...

We sit here and talk about the children that are being mistreated and/or tortured by the military. They are classified as illegal combatants and should be treated better. Let me throw this out: What about the non-combatants that are/were taken by the Iraqis and shot in the head or beheaded?
'The Iraqis'....?
....fine I'll bite, what about those non-combatants?

What about the non-combatants that have just disappeared without a trace.
What about them?

Female combatants being captured and raped.
Have they?

Soldiers videotaped are being dragged through the streets after being killed. Videotapes of these people shown with their captors.
Terrible isnt. It seems to me that there is no justification for such behaviour.

The mistreatment and abuse goes both ways.
Both ways? Are you being deliberately disingenious?

Oh right these people are adults and knew/know the dangers they placed themselves right?
What?

It bothers our sense of dignity knowing it happens.
Sense of dignity....?! I can only speak for myself but I can assure that of the various reactions and concerns that knowledge of other people's suffering evokes in me, concern for my dignity isnt one of them...Are you really telling me that your reaction to learning a person has been brutalised is to come over all precious about your dignity?

To sit and try to justify the abuse of these children or to condemn it is pointless.
If by pointless you mean 'has no effect' then I believe you are mistaken.

The fact that if a child picks up a weapon and shoots to kill someone without the full understanding of its impact it is meaningless to me.
Wow, disturbing...

Given the circumstances the outcome would be the same. Whether you fully understand it or not if it is you against me I will win.
Given what circmstances?

This is a discussion about the conduct of a government towards certain individuals.
If the fact that you have a value system that leads you to react to the suffering of others by worrying about your dignity has some relevence to the discussion, I fail to see it. I also fail to see why the fact that a child picking up a gun and shooting to kill strikes you as meaningless rather than tragic offers any insight either way into whether or not the conduct of the US government toward persons in their custody is acceptable.

In fact nothing you have said in this entire post is materially relevent to whether or not the actions of the US government in connection with Guantanamo Bay and the detainees that are held and have been held there.

Before I put my credibility on the line and make accusations or attempt to point the proper people in the direction of this :

Put your what on the line?


If you want an investigation, fine, but the UN creeps who do it should actually visit the place they're supposed to be investigating this time. Seriously.:

No organisation is allowed unrestricted access. That includes the Red cross.

No, of course not. You just imprison them without due legal course, torture them, put them into solitary confinement for extended periods of time, release no evidence to state why they have been detained and when you do release them you make no apologies.

Oh, I'm sorry, what was the difference again?
The fact we have the soveriegn right as a nation to defend our citizens from attack at what the cost. The difference could not be more clear.

What's most cruel? (both are equally barbaric)

1. Beheading someone (death comes in seconds)
2. Torturing someone for hours/days until they die (like it has been done in Abu Ghraib)
Beheading in IMHO is more cruel. There have been no reports of death by the use aggressive interogation at Abu ghraib, I will point out.

Beheading in IMHO is more cruel. There have been no reports of death by the use aggressive interogation at Abu ghraib, I will point out.

That's right... The evidence below has been doctored to make the man look dead, when if fact he was just taking a nap, wrapped around a warm blanket of plastic provided by the caring soldier (seen smiling in the picture).

May 19, 2004 ABCNEWS has obtained two new photos taken at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing Spc. Charles Graner and Spc. Sabrina Harman posing over the body of a detainee who was allegedly beaten to death by CIA or civilian interrogators in the prison's showers. The detainee's name was Manadel al-Jamadi.

IMAGE 1 (http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/dead-iraqi1.jpg)
IMAGE 2 (http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/040510onslpo_prison_10_p350.jpg)

p.s. tx Gravlen (didn't realise these weren't allowed)

That's right... The evidence below has been doctored to make the man look dead, when if fact he was just taking a nap, wrapped around a warm blanket of plastic provided by the caring soldier (seen smiling in the picture).
Um... You probably shouldn't post pictures of dead people here. I think links are OK, but posting of such graphic pictures is frowned upon, up to and including banning or deletion.

Better safe then sorry, eh? Even someone as evil as you?

Quote: I wonder if the one you've looked at had a XIV Amendment that is different to the one I've looked at, or if it simply didnt have a XIV Amendment...or are all non-US citizens not persons?

XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Ok so what’s your point, the Amendment clearly covers and applies to citizens of the United States of America, not the dirt bags held in GITMO. Thus they do not have any Constitutional rights, these enemy combatants are not covered by the Geneva Convention or any other act, simple as that.

Quote: I wonder if the one you've looked at had a XIV Amendment that is different to the one I've looked at, or if it simply didnt have a XIV Amendment...or are all non-US citizens not persons?

XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Ok so what’s your point, the Amendment clearly covers and applies to citizens of the United States of America, not the dirt bags held in GITMO. Thus they do not have any Constitutional rights, these enemy combatants are not covered by the Geneva Convention or any other act, simple as that.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Just execute the dirt bags that are guilty. CLose Gitmo, take the USS Kenedy which is scheduled to retire, and turn it into a floating Gitmo-and rename is the USS KOFI or USS ANNAN or some other name worthy of such a vessel.

:D

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Just execute the dirt bags that are guilty. CLose Gitmo, take the USS Kenedy which is scheduled to retire, and turn it into a floating Gitmo-and rename is the USS KOFI or USS ANNAN or some other name worthy of such a vessel.

:D


then sink it .

last time ( and every time) I have looked at the constitution it applies to the citizens of the United States of America, and not someone that is not a citizen of the United Sates,

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Ok great, it appears you were refering to the same US Constitution.

Back to your assertion that the last time you looked and every time you looked the constition applied only to US citizens and not to non US citizens.....
Who may States not deprive of life, liberty or property without due proces of law?
Answer = any person

Any: one or some but no matter which

Person: individual human being

So if some thing is a member of the set 'individual human beings' then the constitution applies to them. Hopefully you realise that there are things that are members of the set 'individual human beings' that are not members of the set 'US citizens'.....

Have a go at comprehending the meaning of 'any person within its jurisdiction' for yourself. Dont worry if you run into trouble, just refer back to the one I have already done for you. Give it a go; if you really find yourself stuck I'll help out, but I think it's best if you at least give it a try on your own first. I'm sure you'll do just fine.

then sink it .

You know we Americans always build things bigger and better. We'll build an entire battlegroup around this prison ship.

Wait a sec-the Kennedy is already gonna be sunk, so hang on and let's load up all the gitmo detainees on first. Two for one....



:D

then sink it .
Maybe I'll find a way of convincing your family on a cruise trip first...
See how that feels...

You know we Americans always build things bigger and better. We'll build an entire battlegroup around this prison ship.

Wait a sec-the Kennedy is already gonna be sunk, so hang on and let's load up all the gitmo detainees on first. Two for one....

:D
Care to join me on a cruise-trip with Ultraextreme Sanity and his family? Maybe bring yours as well...

I can understand why the entire world hates us, (US), but the fact is its our ILLIGETIMATE government, not the american people, Yes it is being done in the peoples name, so I for one would support a second american revolution agaisnt the current US government, its clearly corrupt and failing the american people, and is turning into a police state, I'd also support a foriegn nation to help the rebel army, but not try to impose a foriegn style government.

*Trollish ramblings and drivel*
:rolleyes:

Care to join me on a cruise-trip with Ultraextreme Sanity and his family? Maybe bring yours as well...
I'll pay for the tickets.

I'll pay for the tickets.
Offer accepted. Unfortunately, there's no room for you... I know it's not fair, little thing, since you're the one paying for the tickets but - hey - life's a b****.

:rolleyes:
Sorry but you can't come either, as punishment for telling me what I can and can't do...

Offer accepted. Unfortunately, there's no room for you... I know it's not fair, little thing, since you're the one paying for the tickets but - hey - life's a b****.
Oh well, that's damn shame. I hope you guy get a good look at the bottom of the sea :D

That's right... The evidence below has been doctored to make the man look dead, when if fact he was just taking a nap, wrapped around a warm blanket of plastic provided by the caring soldier (seen smiling in the picture).



IMAGE 1 (http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/dead-iraqi1.jpg)
IMAGE 2 (http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/040510onslpo_prison_10_p350.jpg)

p.s. tx Gravlen (didn't realise these weren't allowed)
Oh, wow a whole one person:rolleyes: how many people have been beheaded? alot more

Oh, wow a whole one person:rolleyes: how many people have been beheaded? alot more
First, it's neither whole nor a person anymore; it's utterly lacking in life, a precondition to be a person.
Second, there may be more but I'll leave you wandering...
Third, many more have been tortured, only for my pleasure and amusement.

Oh well, that's damn shame. I hope you guy get a good look at the bottom of the sea :D
*whispers "I can turn into a sea serpent and breathe"*

Don’t just read the articles, read the whole constitution, it does clearly state=====
We the People of the United States of America
Thus the constitution applies to We the People of the Unites States, not we the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, France, Mexico and so on….
Oh any if you’re not sure where to look, try the preamble.

Like those in the towers?

Which is why we have "Operation Iraqui Freedom?" And also, I hardly call a puppet government "free."

Maybe I'll find a way of convincing your family on a cruise trip first...
See how that feels...


You have a better chance of growing a brain cell .;)

You have a better chance of growing a brain cell .
What for? Hell is full of ignorant fools. We don't need brain cells here. :headbang:

It's not enough that Bush has to smear the US by torturing innocents. Now it's 60 under 18s tortured at GitMo. ITMFA.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article620704.ece

Good, I'm glad, because these "under 18 year olds" are the kind of people who would slowly saw off a conscious person's head with glee. We have not one logical reason not to torture them.

You know we Americans always build things bigger and better. We'll build an entire battlegroup around this prison ship.

Wait a sec-the Kennedy is already gonna be sunk, so hang on and let's load up all the gitmo detainees on first. Two for one....



:D

But if you put detainees abord then you cant sink the damm thing . Its a violation a human rights and could be considered murder . How can you interragate dead people ? They have no value dead ....Not to mention..what if a few are innocent ? Like of being in the wrong place at the wrong time...you do know they have been releasing detainees ...just for that reason .

Hey close Gitmo ...find another place but this time establish some sort of oversite and a mechanism to determine guilt or innocence along with a tribunal or other legal means to determine who actually belongs there .

Sounds simple...it wont stop all the fluffle people from still wanting to give group hugs ..but it will bring the system more in line with american Ideals .
The current system sucks ...do you really trust government ? As it is now ...who is being held and for what ? No one really knows for sure ..and they ARE not all high security risks..most are simple -minded garden variety terrorist or Taliban..low level fighters ..you cant just send them back to grab a rifle again but you should establish exactly what you intend to do with them and for how long .

Don’t just read the articles, read the whole constitution,
I have read it previously, I dont believe at this point that it is necessary for me to do so again.

it does clearly state=====
We the People of the United States of America
Yes indeed it does.

Thus the constitution applies to We the People of the Unites States, not we the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, France, Mexico and so on….
No. Your conclusion doesnt follow from the premises.

The phrase we the people does not have the effect of limiting the application of provisions within the Constitution. The phrase is simply a statement asserting the identity of the group that is enacting the constitution (and the 'why' of their doing so). It doesnt state who is excluded from the application of the document's provisions or of any sub-group thereof, nor even that anyone actually is excluded from the application of the provisions or any sub-group thereof.

The phrase doesnt excude any person or persons from being subject to the provisions contained in the document.
Article XIV however specifically includes non-US citizens. In the absence of any inference much less actual statement of exclusion of all non-US citizens from any and all provisions set forth in the document we have no reason to assume anyone is excluded from any provision that could apply to them. In addition Article XIV explictly and unambiguously includes non-US citizens.

Therefore it is not true that the constitution applies only to US citizens.

Oh any if you’re not sure where to look, try the preamble.
Thanks, I do know where to look should I ever need to at some future time, although as I already stated earlier in the post, I dont currently percieve any need to do so at this time...

Anyway, hope that helps clarify matters for you. Let me know if there's anything else I can help clear up for you.

Good, I'm glad, because these "under 18 year olds" are the kind of people who would slowly saw off a conscious person's head with glee. We have not one logical reason not to torture them.
Like I said earlier -- what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? How would feel if you associated with people whom you had no idea were conspiring to launch an attack on the U.S., and were taken into custody yourself? Would you condone such torture still, as well as the slander of people making comments like the one you just made about you?

No it dose not apply to all, the Constitution does not cover the people of other nations.
It is the Constitution of the United Stares of America…..

Ok off subject a bit… Everyone is talking about the “rights” the GITMO detainees, fine well and good. But where is the out rage over the abuses of other countries, how about the way Mexico treats those they catch crossing there southern boarder illegally, tossed in prison with no charges and keep there until……………………….and there are many other such examples………..Or are such thing wrong only when the USA does it

Like I said earlier -- what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? How would feel if you associated with people whom you had no idea were conspiring to launch an attack on the U.S., and were taken into custody yourself? Would you condone such torture still, as well as the slander of people making comments like the one you just made about you?

What basis do you have to say they have no proof? If you can provide reasonable proof that they were not Al-Qeada and had no ill intent against the US I will accept it. I wouldn't just blindly believe stuff moven.org or the international red cross says though.

What basis do you have to say they have no proof? If you can provide reasonable proof that they were not Al-Qeada and had no ill intent against the US I will accept it. I wouldn't just blindly believe stuff moven.org or the international red cross says though.

Oh yeah. Those Red Cross bastards, they're so biased. They're Swiss, so they must have an agenda and lie about the stuff they've seen.

But if you put detainees abord then you cant sink the damm thing. Its a violation a human rights and could be considered murder. How can you interragate dead people? They have no value dead ....Not to mention..what if a few are innocent? Like of being in the wrong place at the wrong time...you do know they have been releasing detainees ...just for that reason .
Are you turning your back on me now?! TRAITOR! I will rip-out your heart and feed it to Hillary Clinton, when she becomes the next bitch from Hell... :mad: Damn you... you... Ultradove Sanity.

I wouldn't just blindly believe stuff moven.org or the international red cross says though.
You'd blindly believe that those held are involved with terrorist activites, though? For the record, I never said that "they" had no proof for holding these people. You see, originally in the United States, we believed in the idea of "innocent until proven guilty", not guilty until, after rounds and rounds of torture and without a proper trial or appeal process, we decide to let you go.

Oh yeah. Those Red Cross bastards, they're so biased. They're Swiss, so they must have an agenda and lie about the stuff they've seen.

It's so blatantly a bleeding hearts group they may as well sign themselves up as an international lobbying group. So yes, they are biased. I don't suppose you have anything intelligent to say?

What basis do you have to say they have no proof? If you can provide reasonable proof that they were not Al-Qeada and had no ill intent against the US I will accept it. I wouldn't just blindly believe stuff moven.org or the international red cross says though.
First "The Taker", then "Bobo Hope" and now "A_B"... Are you trying to compete with my many names?

p.s. forgot "Vladimirian"

No it dose not apply to all,
True.

the Constitution does not cover the people of other nations.
Contingently false in theory and actually false in reality.

It is the Constitution of the United Stares of America…..
Yes that is correct. It is the Constition of the United States of America.

It's so blatantly a bleeding hearts group they may as well sign themselves up as an international lobbying group. So yes, they are biased. I don't suppose you have anything intelligent to say?

Given your last statement, not to you.

Don’t just read the articles, read the whole constitution, it does clearly state=====
We the People of the United States of America
Thus the constitution applies to We the People of the Unites States, not we the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, France, Mexico and so on….
Oh any if you’re not sure where to look, try the preamble.

The Constitution may be specific ..as it was intended to be ..to american citezens .

But the constitution is not the only significant document and doesnt address the principles that our country was founded on ..

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, etc.


So what is the point that you are trying to make again ..?
That only Americans are to be treated as equal under the law ?
That only Americans have the rights to liberty , life , and the pusuit of happiness ?

Why was the US founded again ?

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Are you turning your back on me now?! TRAITOR! I will rip-out your heart and feed it to Hillary Clinton, when she becomes the next bitch from Hell... :mad: Damn you... you... Ultradove Sanity.


ULTRA DOVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVEN for SATAN that was a low blow...!!!!!!!!!!


how dare you sir !:eek: :eek: :eek:


I hope your heating bills triple !!! And your ice machine explodes .

ULTRA DOVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVEN for SATAN that was a low blow...!!!!!!!!!!


how dare you sir !:eek: :eek: :eek:


I hope your heating bills triple !!! And your ice machine explodes .
Low blow jobs are my speciality... :D
As to my heating bills, I don't need to pay them since I receive a daily stock of fuel (the rotten corpses of humanity).
Now the ice machine... *sigh* I loose about 4 a day... :mad: They just can't stand the heat.

Given your last statement, not to you.

.............or to anyone else apparently.

.............or to anyone else apparently.
Not really. Skinny is actually quite intelligent.

Not really. Skinny is actually quite intelligent.

Thanks, but don't worry. I've had little N00bs insult me before. They bugger off eventually, or get deleted. I doubt he's any different.