NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276.html

I must say, America is now in a very sad state, and the thought of a president considering legalizing forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear for any prisoner, makes me embarrassed to call myself an American.

So their legalising it now? Makes sense. Better than breaking your own laws. :rolleyes:

well, no, the laws have already been broke. just now, rather than face the responsibility, they will go ahead and change the laws. Think of it like the Mods on the game when Influence started. they refused to restore old nations who griefed, from before the start of influence even though griefing is now legal. at the time the laws were in place (on NationStates and concerning this matter), they were broken, thus they should be responsible for their actions at that time, reguardless of if the rules were changed since.

So basically the US is trying to make it legal to break international law?

Well, at least this is an admission of their ever so obvious guilt. Too bad it doesn't come on the back of remorse, but instead on that of further erosion of decency and effacement of any moral high ground they could ever claim. Not that anyone bought they had it in the first place...

Fass FTW.

Tell me once again how panties on your head is torture.

There are men who pay to have that done in Nevada.

George Bush IS a war crime

Good god. someone should make him get naked and wear a dog leash.....

oh wait....

He would probably enjoy it

Tell me once again how panties on your head is torture.

There are men who pay to have that done in Nevada.

DK, how would you feel if you were chained up and forced to watch someone take a dump on the bible and then smear it on the American flag? All this, of course, after you've been deprived of sleep, forced to stand in agonizing positions and threatened with dogs.

The reason it (meaning your laughably incomplete example,) is torture is because it targets the deepest held beliefs of the captive AFTER much of their resolve has been sapped by psychological and physiological means.

In other words, one man's torure is another man's pleasure.

And once again, my nation thumbs its nose at the world, and declares that the rules don't apply to us. Tell me, all ye neocon apologists, why then should the rules apply to anyone? Why should not other nations now have the right to degrade and humiliate our soldiers? I'd rather not see that happen to our troops, but what justification do we have now to expect humane treatment?

And yes, I'm aware that al Qaeda is not a "nation". But this still gives other nations an excuse to degrade American soldiers, should they ever capture one. Besides, the Taliban we're holding were a government. Are we treating them differently?

Tell me once again how panties on your head is torture.

There are men who pay to have that done in Nevada.


Yep.

Panties on heads.

That's alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll that's ever happened.

DK, how would you feel if you were chained up and forced to watch someone take a dump on the bible and then smear it on the American flag? All this, of course, after you've been deprived of sleep, forced to stand in agonizing positions and threatened with dogs.

The reason it (meaning your laughably incomplete example,) is torture is because it targets the deepest held beliefs of the captive AFTER much of their resolve has been sapped by psychological and physiological means.

In other words, one man's torure is another man's pleasure.

The agonizing position would bother me. The rest would not. I've been to both US and German courses covering being a prisoner of war. This included (to a greater extent in Germany than in the US) beatings, sleep deprivation, and agonizing positions. The Germans also feel free to beat you, which the US trainers do not do. I lost some of my lower teeth there.

You were saying?

dont worry friends, this being passed would be like 30 nails in the Republican coffin.

The agonizing position would bother me. The rest would not. I've been to both US and German courses covering being a prisoner of war. This included (to a greater extent in Germany than in the US) beatings, sleep deprivation, and agonizing positions. The Germans also feel free to beat you, which the US trainers do not do. I lost some of my lower teeth there.

You were saying?

Did you also take a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to the face? It's astonishing how tough people are on the internet.

You do also realize there's quite a difference between simulating POW conditions and actually being one, right? I mean, even when the simulation is harsh, you know it's going to end and that you're going to be all right. Entirely different psychological situation.

And once again, my nation thumbs its nose at the world, and declares that the rules don't apply to us. Tell me, all ye neocon apologists, why then should the rules apply to anyone? Why should not other nations now have the right to degrade and humiliate our soldiers? I'd rather not see that happen to our troops, but what justification do we have now to expect humane treatment?

And yes, I'm aware that al Qaeda is not a "nation". But this still gives other nations an excuse to degrade American soldiers, should they ever capture one. Besides, the Taliban we're holding were a government. Are we treating them differently?

You seem to be a little confused; it's well known that international law only applies to countries where the people have the wrong coloured skin or worship the wrong god.

Did you also take a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to the face? It's astonishing how tough people are on the internet.

You do also realize there's quite a difference between simulating POW conditions and actually being one, right? I mean, even when the simulation is harsh, you know it's going to end and that you're going to be all right. Entirely different psychological situation.
It's the difference between "This will end soon" and "I will most likely be here until I die"

Different.

And, DK, did you intentionally draw everyone off track so we would ignore the fact that this breaks international law, or were you saying you could survive for years as a POW?

It's the difference between "This will end soon" and "I will most likely be here until I die"

Different.

And, DK, did you intentionally draw everyone off track so we would ignore the fact that this breaks international law, or were you saying you could survive for years as a POW?
Who cares what he's saying. Not only is he full of it, he knows he's full of it, and I don't honestly think he should be encouraged in his fantasy life anymore.

Who cares what he's saying. Not only is he full of it, he knows he's full of it, and I don't honestly think he should be encouraged in his fantasy life anymore.
But its fun poking things until they explode into a mass of easily attacked arguments/bullshit. :)

j/k

Who cares what he's saying. Not only is he full of it, he knows he's full of it, and I don't honestly think he should be encouraged in his fantasy life anymore.
Better he stay in his fantasy life than influence the real one. Let the man keep his delusions; at least then he's relatively harmless.

Fortunately there's the ICC. Now that the US will refuse to send its own war criminals to trial other countries are free to do so.

Fortunately there's the ICC. Now that the US will refuse to send its own war criminals to trial other countries are free to do so.

You have a slight problem in that the United States is not a party to the ICC.

You have a slight problem in that the United States is not a party to the ICC.
Doesn't matter. If a war criminal can go back to his country where he'll face no justice, the third country can hold him and send him to the ICC, regardless of whether that first country is a signatary of the ICC or not.

By not being a signatary all that means is that the US won't send war criminals to the ICC.

Doesn't matter.

Actually it matters quite alot. Even international law recognizes national soveriegnty.

If a war criminal can go back to his country where he'll face no justice, the third country can hold him and send him to the ICC, regardless of whether that first country is a signatary of the ICC or not.

And what if said country is also not a member of the ICC? There is no legal case.

By not being a signatary all that means is that the US won't send war criminals to the ICC.

Exactly. Which means that the ICC has no legal standing over US soldiers.

Exactly. Which means that the ICC has no legal standing over US soldiers.
So, abetting wanted criminals are we? Fine! Let's just arrest the whole government!

<_<;;

So, abetting wanted criminals are we? Fine! Let's just arrest the whole government!

<_<;;

On what charges? They have not committed any war crimes.

The agonizing position would bother me. The rest would not. I've been to both US and German courses covering being a prisoner of war. This included (to a greater extent in Germany than in the US) beatings, sleep deprivation, and agonizing positions. The Germans also feel free to beat you, which the US trainers do not do. I lost some of my lower teeth there.

You were saying?

You did check that this happened to other people, and not just you?

Actually it matters quite alot. Even international law recognizes national soveriegnty.

And what if said country is also not a member of the ICC? There is no legal case.
There's no ICC police that will go and get you wherever you are. The ICC depends on each nation's legal system to get the alleged war criminals and only hears cases referred to them, it does not go looking actively for them.

Exactly. Which means that the ICC has no legal standing over US soldiers.
Depends on the gravity of the crime, I guess. The US purposefully hasn't signed in the US to prevent its soldiers from being sent to the ICC, but it also has been looking for agreements with individual countries to prevent them to send US soldiers to the ICC, which means it could happen.

Countries like Spain and Belgium will try war criminals regardless of where the crime was committed and in cases have solicited the apprehension of war criminals in third countries. That's what happened to Pinochet and that Argentinian military they arrested in Mexico City.

There's no ICC police that will go and get you wherever you are. The ICC depends on each nation's legal system to get the alleged war criminals and only hears cases referred to them, it does not go looking actively for them.

Referred to them is the key. Now...what if a country refuses to give up said person and that country does not recognize the ICC? Then what? They are not violating international law in refusing to give him up since they do not recognize the ICC.

Depends on the gravity of the crime, I guess. The US purposefully hasn't signed in the US to prevent its soldiers from being sent to the ICC, but it also has been looking for agreements with individual countries to prevent them to send US soldiers to the ICC, which means it could happen.

And see the status quo go bye bye?

Countries like Spain and Belgium will try war criminals regardless of where the crime was committed and in cases have solicited the apprehension of war criminals in third countries. That's what happened to Pinochet and that Argentinian military they arrested in Mexico City.

The thing is, those courts have no jurisdiction over the courts of said countries.

On what charges? They have not committed any war crimes.
*Shrug*

Just repeating the old tried and tested "Afghani Procedure". You hold people that are criminals to us, you hand them over or we come and make you hand them over.

Referred to them is the key. Now...what if a country refuses to give up said person and that country does not recognize the ICC? Then what? They are not violating international law in refusing to give him up since they do not recognize the ICC.
No, they aren't. Who say they would? But 100 countries recognize the ICC. Step into one of those countries and you are at risk of being sent to the ICC. Whether the ICC will accept the case is another matter.

And see the status quo go bye bye?
Most countries didn't accept the treaty. Basically none of their partners in Latin America, I think only Colombia agreed.

The thing is, those courts have no jurisdiction over the courts of said countries.
Nope. They don't. Who has said otherwise? They can solicit an extradition, though.

I'm sorry to have to tell you people this, but your definition of ‘torture’ is pretty damn pathetic. Forced nakedness? Oh no, I have to be naked!
Wearing a dog collar? Please, that’s just pathetic.

Unless you are causing grave bodily harm it is not torture. You people want to call anything that might hurt someone’s feelings as torture – which only cheapens the word.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276.html

I must say, America is now in a very sad state, and the thought of a president considering legalizing forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear for any prisoner, makes me embarrassed to call myself an American.
There's a long row to hoe before these proposals become law. So quit whining and start writing letters to your representatives telling them what nonsense it is to repeal these acts.

I'm sorry to have to tell you people this, but your definition of ‘torture’ is pretty damn pathetic. Forced nakedness? Oh no, I have to be naked!
Wearing a dog collar? Please, that’s just pathetic.

Unless you are causing grave bodily harm it is not torture. You people want to call anything that might hurt someone’s feelings as torture – which only cheapens the word.

Torture can include phychological torture through forcing someone to do degrading things. It's easy to think of forced nakedness as tame considering more favourable conditions - it's not as if getting naked for a bath's torture, but when some lunatic's yelping at you and threatening you, it must be fucking horrible.

I'm sorry to have to tell you people this, but your definition of ‘torture’ is pretty damn pathetic. Forced nakedness? Oh no, I have to be naked!
Wearing a dog collar? Please, that’s just pathetic.

Unless you are causing grave bodily harm it is not torture. You people want to call anything that might hurt someone’s feelings as torture – which only cheapens the word.

Kind of a Straw-Man, isn't that?


It does not matter whether it is true 'torture' or not. It IS degrading, and could (and is) easily be considered a human rights violation and a violation of international law. And, of course, now we are proposing to snub some more international law. We already refused to submit war criminals to the ICC and to sign the Kyoto treaty, and soon we could be sending the Geneva Convention practically out the window. I understand that International law recognizes the national sovereignty of non-sigatories, But we ARE part of this world, you know. I am steadily losing yet more respect for Bush. [/rant](begins to pant heavily)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276.html

I must say, America is now in a very sad state, and the thought of a president considering legalizing forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear for any prisoner, makes me embarrassed to call myself an American.

That's it, I've had it with this country. I'm high-tailing it out of here before he makes it legal for the military to do that to random U.S. citizens.

All this does is prevent people from being tried in Federal Court for this. They still will be tried in accordance with the UCMJ.

That's it, I've had it with this country. I'm high-tailing it out of here before he makes it legal for the military to do that to random U.S. citizens.
Republicans wont let that happen. But go ahead if you think running away fixes your problems. :)

George Bush IS a war crime

Good god. someone should make him get naked and wear a dog leash.....

oh wait....

He would probably enjoy it
I bet he's legalizing it so he and cheney can have their Hard Core sex scenes in the Oval Office. And Cocaine, can't forget the Cocaine.

That's how I think the Neocons control Bush, they give him Cocaine before he signs something. Bush is too stupid to make these laws himself.

Bush is too stupid to make these laws himself.

That is because he does not have to make the laws. Congress makes the laws in case you have forgotten about Article I of the US Constitution.

Tell me once again how panties on your head is torture.

There are men who pay to have that done in Nevada.
Hehe, you are an RWA Personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism)!
2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. "It is acceptable to be cruel to those who do not follow the rules."
...
2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:

- Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
- Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
- Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
- Be prejudiced against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
- Be hostile toward homosexuals.
- Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
- Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276.html

I must say, America is now in a very sad state, and the thought of a president considering legalizing forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear for any prisoner, makes me embarrassed to call myself an American.
Awwww! Poor widdle babies! Dey gone get deir widdle fewwings hurted! Tsk! :D

So basically the US is trying to make it legal to break international law?

Not to mention that international law in question is in and of itself part of US law under Article 6 of the US Constitution, and cannot be undone by simple statute.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

All this does is prevent people from being tried in Federal Court for this. They still will be tried in accordance with the UCMJ.

It appears that someone didn't read the article. (Unless you somehow believe that the UCMJ applies to civilians.)

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

Why am I not worried?

If we catch you, and you are indeed AQ/Hezz/Hadj, you should be tortured until you give us the info we need to get the rest of your buddies.

I don't care about human rights for these savages, they aren't humans, they're merely smart animals.

A little girl has rights, an AQ agent does not. The little girl is infinitely more innocent and deserving of a safe life than the AQ agent, and for her sake....

Why am I not worried?

If we catch you, and you are indeed AQ/Hezz/Hadj, you should be tortured until you give us the info we need to get the rest of your buddies.

I don't care about human rights for these savages, they aren't humans, they're merely smart animals.
Racist and ignorant... wow.

Racist and ignorant... wow.

How can that be racist? Of course, I assume you are thinking that ONLY ARABS can be AQ. Well, color me suprised, you seem to be painting arabs with the "AQ agent material only" brush.

AQ *HAS* recruited white folk in the past. Not that that will protect them, says I....

Racist and ignorant... wow.

yup

torture doesn't work, never has, never will
if you pull a man's thumbnail off with a pair of pliers and tell him you'll pull off the rest of his fingernails then dip his hands in a bowl of salt, he'll tell anything, literally, confess to any crime, renounce any belief he held, anything.

"we cannot defend freedom abroad, by abandoning it at home"
-who done said that again?

How can that be racist? Of course, I assume you are thinking that ONLY ARABS can be AQ. Well, color me suprised, you seem to be painting arabs with the "AQ agent material only" brush.

AQ *HAS* recruited white folk in the past. Not that that will protect them, says I....




Nice strawman. I applaud you sir, for truly, you are a man of many talents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276.html

I must say, America is now in a very sad state, and the thought of a president considering legalizing forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear for any prisoner, makes me embarrassed to call myself an American.

Presidents do not make laws .

And at any rate all they are doing is making the law much clearer.

Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as "outrages upon [the] personal dignity" of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq --] that fall short of torture.



WAR CRIMES ACT .

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH .

Nice strawman. I applaud you sir, for truly, you are a man of many talents.

Only what God has gifted me with.

I am a jack of all trades, master of none :p

Americans. We are nice people, but piss us off and we'll bomb your country, lock you up, and beat the snot out of you.

Only what God has gifted me with.

I am a jack of all trades, master of none :p

Americans. We are nice people, but piss us off and we'll bomb your country, lock you up, and beat the snot out of you.



Whether it's legal or not.

Only what God has gifted me with.

I am a jack of all trades, master of none :p

Americans. We are nice people, but piss us off and we'll bomb your country, lock you up, and beat the snot out of you.

That attitude says it all. And you wonder why your unpopular:headbang:

Only what God has gifted me with.

I am a jack of all trades, master of none :p

Americans. We are nice people, but piss us off and we'll bomb your country, lock you up, and beat the snot out of you.
Well, pray harder for an update on gifts then, 'cause what you're spewing out has very little to do with what He gifts people with.

Really sad that by changing what is acceptable, it's almost giving those who would act on it the right and freedom to do so.

The U.S. surely is in decline.

Awwww! Poor widdle babies! Dey gone get deir widdle fewwings hurted! Tsk! :D
Every single amount of respect I ever had for you for whatever reason has now just evaporated. Congratulations, Eut. I'm now on Dobb's side.

As for this legistlation, I heard about it yesterday. It sickens me, but I still don't think it'll pass. Fleckinstan has a point: by this point, something like this would be political suicide for any Republican that agreed to it. It won't pass. That doesn't mean, however, that the very FACT it has even been proposed is a good thing. Even coming close to something like this strikes at the very core of what America truly is.

The president and the heads of the military have been watching WAY too many gay snuff films. What sort of meeting had to be held to decide whether or not panty-headedness and leashing were worthy of being added to the Big Book of Interrogation Methodology?

While the dignity of prisoners of war is definitely at issue here, the dignity of the military and the executive branch has officially been obliterated.

That attitude says it all. And you wonder why your unpopular:headbang:
I'm not worried about my popularity. Shite, I am a conservative, minority, southern republican (Sometimes). Since when would that make me popular?

Awwww! Poor widdle babies! Dey gone get deir widdle fewwings hurted! Tsk! :D

Eut you always are good for a laugh :D

The president and the heads of the military have been watching WAY too many gay snuff films. What sort of meeting had to be held to decide whether or not panty-headedness and leashing were worthy of being added to the Big Book of Interrogation Methodology?

While the dignity of prisoners of war is definitely at issue here, the dignity of the military and the executive branch has officially been obliterated.

Well, you wanted open mindedness....

We're simply foistering the gay lifestyle on these detainees. They do it in public school, so I guess it's OK!

Well, you wanted open mindedness....

We're simply foistering the gay lifestyle on these detainees. They do it in public school, so I guess it's OK!
I guess it's similar...
"Some men don't like wearing panties on their heads. They may even prefer due process of law. There's nothing wrong with that. Others, however, enjoy being hooded, drugged, dragged to an undisclosed location, and being made to wear women's underwear on their heads following a refreshing round of electic shocks from a car battery. There's nothing wrong with that either."

We have to respect sexual diversity and "alternative lifestyles," of course. I'm glad we're on the same page.

Why am I not worried?

If we catch you, and you are indeed AQ/Hezz/Hadj, you should be tortured until you give us the info we need to get the rest of your buddies.

I don't care about human rights for these savages, they aren't humans, they're merely smart animals.

A little girl has rights, an AQ agent does not. The little girl is infinitely more innocent and deserving of a safe life than the AQ agent, and for her sake....

Regardless of what you say in protest, if you regard an entire group of people, whether it be an political, ethnic, or religious group ect. as not worthy of human rights, you are indeed bigoted. Al-Qaeda and the rest are political organizations. They employ unsavory and rather despicable (to say the LEAST) methods to acheive their goals, BUT that is no excuse to in even the slightest way emulate them.

Also, see Pyotr's post about torture. Even if you capture an innocent man, if you were to torture him, he would still tell you that he was a terrorist and killed babies or something, and start listing off names or random people as terrorists, on even the SLIGHTEST chance of a reprive. I would. Luckily, at least Bush isn't proposing essentially legalize that. However, he is trying, in essence, to make it so that no officials get punished for psychological torture even if they were to order it or 'overlook' it deliberately

It still has to get through congress, doesn't it?

It still has to get through congress, doesn't it?

Yep.

Every single amount of respect I ever had for you for whatever reason has now just evaporated. Congratulations, Eut. I'm now on Dobb's side.
I'd just as soon labour under the apprehension that your being on my side has less to do with Forrest's comportment in-thread, and more to do with your own personal morals & ethics - but Hell, I'll take the backup wherever I can manage it.

To paraphrase Arlo Guthrie, "I ain't proud... or tired".

Cookie dispensed.

Why am I not worried?

If we catch you, and you are indeed AQ/Hezz/Hadj, you should be tortured until you give us the info we need to get the rest of your buddies.

I don't care about human rights for these savages, they aren't humans, they're merely smart animals.
Imagine if you will, that these "savages", "smart animals" have computers.

Imagine if you will, that they can access this forum.

Imagine if you will, that they copy this post of yours, and post it for the rest of the "animals" to read.

Imagine if you will, that they capture you or a buddy of yours and apply the appropriately approved (by you) torture methods that you describe.

Imagine if you will, that you have inadvertently given aid to these "savages" by validating the use of torture.

A little girl has rights, an AQ agent does not. The little girl is infinitely more innocent and deserving of a safe life than the AQ agent, and for her sake...
Does the above apply to little "innocent" Iraqi girls who have been maimed for life, left parentless, left homeless, or has died due to an illegal invasion of their country?

So the USA decides to move the goal posts again? :eek:
What a surprise (not).

Does the above apply to little "innocent" Iraqi girls who have been maimed for life, left parentless, left homeless, or has died [b]due to an illegal invasion of their country?[b]
did that was the reason, or maybe the terror groups who blew up soldiers and civilians had something to do withy that?

ANyone find this kinda ironic?
"People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope," said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.
Oh no!! Poor torturers, feeling that their behaviour and treatment of prisoners might actually be monitored!
The poor things. How it must be so tough for them. So stressful. Does the Red Cross and Amnesty International have no conscious whatsoever? Can't they see how their meddling and demands over decent treatment of suspects is causing such stress?
For shame, RC and AI. For shame.


I also like the 'Foreigners are using..." quote.
Damn dirty Foreigners. With their unAmerican ways and attitudes! Why, some of them don't even worship the same God as us!
They look funny, dress funny, eat strange foods and some are even a different colour to us.

Good thing we can ammend the law so we don't have to listen to them damn dirty foreigners telling us we can't torture who we want!




For some reason, I can't help but think of Victorian England and it's attitudes to the Indian and African colonies. Wonder why.

did that was the reason, or maybe the terror groups who blew up soldiers and civilians had something to do withy that?
I was referring strictly to Iraqi deaths and injuries that have resulted from the invasion/occupation of Iraq by US forces.

I was referring strictly to Iraqi deaths and injuries that have resulted from the invasion/occupation of Iraq by US forces.

And yet...those people who have violated the UCMJ are being tried and punished for their crimes.

DK, how would you feel if you were chained up and forced to watch someone take a dump on the bible and then smear it on the American flag? All this, of course, after you've been deprived of sleep, forced to stand in agonizing positions and threatened with dogs.

The reason it (meaning your laughably incomplete example,) is torture is because it targets the deepest held beliefs of the captive AFTER much of their resolve has been sapped by psychological and physiological means.

Well, I don't think that attacking beliefs is a problem. What I am against is electric shocks, attack dogs, and so on. They should have had Bush's and Rummy's heads for that one.

And yet...those people who have violated the UCMJ are being tried and punished for their crimes.
All well and fine, but I am referring to the push button pilots dropping 2,000 lb. bombs and total anihiliation of places such as Fallujah and now Ramadi.

U.S. Lays Waste to Another Iraqi City (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37576/)

DM's comments about "innocent little girls" got me going, especially since he doesn't have any children of his own.

All well and fine, but I am referring to the push button pilots dropping 2,000 lb. bombs and total anihiliation of places such as Fallujah and now Ramadi.

You do realize that Fallujah civilians were warned to leave the area I hope. Much like Israel telling the Lebanonese civilians to leave because the area was going to get bombed. The United States let them leave and then attacked the city. Also should be noted that Fallujah was a terrorist stronghold during that time so it does stand to reason to attack it. Therefor, it is not a war crime to actually hit your enemy's strong hold.

U.S. Lays Waste to Another Iraqi City (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37576/)

Now do you have the actual story from Cnn, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, NYT, LA Times, BBC, or the Times so that I can actually verify what this person is saying?

DM's comments about "innocent little girls" got me going, especially since he doesn't have any children of his own.

I can understand that.

Yet another thing America is doing that I couldn't care less about. Why would I, as a Brit, give a damn what America is trying to do to cover up its secrets, or to break its own laws, or to legalise a valid method of destroying your enemy. What business is mine and what business is it if of my Belgian, Brazilian, or Icelandic counterpart?

NONE.

You do realize that Fallujah civilians were warned to leave the area I hope. Much like Israel telling the Lebanonese civilians to leave because the area was going to get bombed. The United States let them leave and then attacked the city. Also should be noted that Fallujah was a terrorist stronghold during that time so it does stand to reason to attack it. Therefor, it is not a war crime to actually hit your enemy's strong hold.
I could go off on a fairly long rant about Fallujah, but I will spare you.

1. Advising civilians to leave and them being able to do so are two separate ideas, especially when the US was preventing any male over 15 from leaving.

2. Hitting enemy strongholds and killing hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians is unacceptable.

3. Using white phosporus bombs on the people is a war crime.

So,

it's official then.

America has turned fascist.

Sorry to know this.

Really sorry.

Yet another thing America is doing that I couldn't care less about. Why would I, as a Brit, give a damn what America is trying to do to cover up its secrets, or to break its own laws, or to legalise a valid method of destroying your enemy. What business is mine and what business is it if of my Belgian, Brazilian, or Icelandic counterpart?

NONE.
Not at the minute, anyway. Should you ever become said enemy, your views on the matter might change somewhat.

Yes, but I'm not, and I have no intention of partaking in the defence of a nation that is enemies with the world's only superpower.

Do you?

If so, you know what to expect.

Why am I not worried?

If we catch you, and you are indeed AQ/Hezz/Hadj, you should be tortured until you give us the info we need to get the rest of your buddies.

I don't care about human rights for these savages, they aren't humans, they're merely smart animals.
Innocent until proven guilty!

Americans. We are nice people, but piss us off and we'll bomb your country, lock you up, and beat the snot out of you.
Americans do that even if you don't piss them off. And please, please stop mentioning God and Jesus in your posts when you clearly don't follow Them.

I could go off on a fairly long rant about Fallujah, but I will spare you.

Hehe. I thank you. I have a tendency anyway to ignore very long posts, especially rants.

1. Advising civilians to leave and them being able to do so are two separate ideas, especially when the US was preventing any male over 15 from leaving.

What makes them unable to leave? As to the 15 year old thing, I thougt that was stupid myself.

2. Hitting enemy strongholds and killing hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians is unacceptable.

I could point out that if terrorists were not using civilian structures as hideouts and taking potshots at us from said buildings with civilians inside them absolves us from said attaccks. Using human shields is against International Law and any deaths among these human shields is laid at the feet of those who use them.

3. Using white phosporus bombs on the people is a war crime.

That is not 100% accurate CanuckHeaven.

So,

it's official then.

America has turned fascist.

Sorry to know this.

Really sorry.

I see someone does not realize that it has not even passed Congress yet.

Now do you have the actual story from Cnn, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, NYT, LA Times, BBC, or the Times so that I can actually verify what this person is saying?
Not the same story but the same idea:

Insurgents hamper U.S., Iraqi forces in Ramadi (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12922324/)

And please, please stop mentioning God and Jesus in your posts when you clearly don't follow Them.

Who are you to say he does/cannot not interpret them in the way he does?

Not the same story but the same idea:

Insurgents hamper U.S., Iraqi forces in Ramadi (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12922324/)

Thank you :)

Hehe. I thank you. I have a tendency anyway to ignore very long posts, especially rants.
:D

What makes them unable to leave? As to the 15 year old thing, I thougt that was stupid myself.
Picture women, and children (non drivers), heading out into the desert and leaving their homes and their men to destroyed and slaughtered.

I could point out that if terrorists were not using civilian structures as hideouts and taking potshots at us from said buildings with civilians inside them absolves us from said attaccks. Using human shields is against International Law and any deaths among these human shields is laid at the feet of those who use them.
Don't confuse terrorists with insurgents. If you attack my country, I am what you would call an insurgent and I will do whatever is necessary to remove you from my native soil. Don't tell me I can't hide, because I will be waiting for you, especially if my weapons are far inferior to yours and I don't have any airplanes to drop bombs on your head.

That is not 100% accurate CanuckHeaven.
I think it is. :(

Don't confuse terrorists with insurgents. If you attack my country, I am what you would call an insurgent and I will do whatever is necessary to remove you from my native soil. Don't tell me I can't hide, because I will be waiting for you, especially if my weapons are far inferior to yours and I don't have any airplanes to drop bombs on your head.

Oh I am not telling them they can't hide but even insurgents know what internatinal law says about civilian structures. Even insurgents play by the rules most of the time. However, when an insurgency starts hitting civilians, they move out of the realm of insurgency to that of a terrorist. I have no problems with an insurgency if they play by the rules by attacking those that are occupying them. That is perfectly legal. What I know is illegal is hitting civilians on purpose.

I think it is. :(

We will agree to disagree on this because this really is not a thread for this type of discussion.

Only what God has gifted me with.
A shame then that God has such lousy tastes in gifts.
I am a jack of all trades, master of none :p
Correct if one reads just the first five words of the above sentence (and adds an 'f' to the last word).

There's a long row to hoe before these proposals become law. So quit whining and start writing letters to your representatives telling them what nonsense it is to repeal these acts.
One of the best, most well-thoughout and practical posts in this thread.

God help me, but I'm siding with Myr!

Oh I am not telling them they can't hide but even insurgents know what internatinal law says about civilian structures. Even insurgents play by the rules most of the time. However, when an insurgency starts hitting civilians, they move out of the realm of insurgency to that of a terrorist. I have no problems with an insurgency if they play by the rules by attacking those that are occupying them. That is perfectly legal. What I know is illegal is hitting civilians on purpose.
Doesn't international laws state that one country is not to violate the soveignity of an another?

Not all insurgents are terrorists and in Fallujah, there were insurgents, terrorists and thousands of innocent people. The US indiscriminately destroyed most of Fallujah. I would post links to many pics that I have seen, but it is a DEATable offence.

BTW, this isn't just what I see, this is what the world sees. I feel for Americans who don't support this unholy war in Iraq.

We will agree to disagree on this because this really is not a thread for this type of discussion.
Actually it is because this thread deals about legalizing "war crimes".

One of the best, most well-thoughout and practical posts in this thread.

God help me, but I'm siding with Myr!
I also agree with that comment. It is certainly the most logical one.

Is the sky falling yet?

I don't care about human rights for these savages, they aren't humans, they're merely smart animals.
Make that distinction and you descend to a very low level of pooheadery indeed.

Poohead.

Who are you to say he does/cannot not interpret them in the way he does?
Because he's so inconsistent with them. He is Christian only on sexual matters, it would appear. He misses the whole point that Jesus helps us transcend our primal list for sex and violence. DM doesn't transcend anything. He only replaces his sexual lust with lust for violence (or "war boners" as he calls it).

Doesn't international laws state that one country is not to violate the soveignity of an another?

Yep. Is it little wonder why no one realizes this. It was why many wars have been faught because someone wants something that the other has. Look at World War II for example as well as Korea. We can even throw in the First Iraq War while we are at it. It is sad fact of life that no one learns from the mistakes of the past so that we can create a better future.

Not all insurgents are terrorists and in Fallujah, there were insurgents, terrorists and thousands of innocent people.

I am not going to argue this but they were warned what was going to happened. Also, according to an article you gave me, Alot of the insurgents in Ramadi came from Fallujah after the US overran it.

The US indiscriminately destroyed most of Fallujah. I would post links to many pics that I have seen, but it is a DEATable offence.

Do not have to. I have seen them. Let me ask you this though! If you know of a city that is a terrorist stronghold (I am leaving out the insurgency and civilians for the purpose of this question) and knew that your casualties will be high if you just attacked the city, would you have ordered an all out air strike first and then send in the troops or just send in the troops and have the air force (Marines, Navy, and the USAF) back you up knowing that you will suffer many casualties? The purpose of any operation is to minimize your own casualties while inflicting heavy losses on your enemy.

I could use a very good example of why Fallujah was bombed the way it was.

BTW, this isn't just what I see, this is what the world sees. I feel for Americans who don't support this unholy war in Iraq.

There are alot but also alot of us do not want the military to leave right away.

Actually it is because this thread deals about legalizing "war crimes".

I thought we were talking about civilians and the war crimes act and not the military.

Because he's so inconsistent with them. He is Christian only on sexual matters, it would appear. He misses the whole point that Jesus helps us transcend our primal list for sex and violence. DM doesn't transcend anything. He only replaces his sexual lust with lust for violence (or "war boners" as he calls it).

I have come to that conclusion myself. :(

Yep. Is it little wonder why no one realizes this. It was why many wars have been faught because someone wants something that the other has. Look at World War II for example as well as Korea. We can even throw in the First Iraq War while we are at it. It is sad fact of life that no one learns from the mistakes of the past so that we can create a better future.
Exactly.

I am not going to argue this but they were warned what was going to happened. Also, according to an article you gave me, Alot of the insurgents in Ramadi came from Fallujah after the US overran it.
I guess if the US destroys all the Iraqi cities then the insurgents/terrorists will have nowhere to hide, but then again the people will also have nowhere to live.

Do not have to. I have seen them. Let me ask you this though! If you know of a city that is a terrorist stronghold (I am leaving out the insurgency and civilians for the purpose of this question) and knew that your casualties will be high if you just attacked the city, would you have ordered an all out air strike first and then send in the troops or just send in the troops and have the air force (Marines, Navy, and the USAF) back you up knowing that you will suffer many casualties? The purpose of any operation is to minimize your own casualties while inflicting heavy losses on your enemy.

I could use a very good example of why Fallujah was bombed the way it was.
It would have been much simpler to practice a policy of containment?

There are alot but also alot of us do not want the military to leave right away.
Unless the US is going to send in tens of thousands of more troops, then the best policy would be to leave and let the Iraqis finish their civil war. A war that was created by the US BTW by removing all the Baathists from positions of power in Iraq (see Bremer's Orders).

I thought we were talking about civilians and the war crimes act and not the military.
It can easily morph into the premise that the US is already commiting war crimes in battle, and rationalizing and justifying their actions. I see some of their sound bytes coming back in your posts.

Because he's so inconsistent with them. He is Christian only on sexual matters, it would appear. He misses the whole point that Jesus helps us transcend our primal list for sex and violence. DM doesn't transcend anything. He only replaces his sexual lust with lust for violence (or "war boners" as he calls it).
I would have to agree with you on this.

Exactly.

:)

I guess if the US destroys all the Iraqi cities then the insurgents/terrorists will have nowhere to hide, but then again the people will also have nowhere to live.

Unfortunately true :(

It would have been much simpler to practice a policy of containment?

It would be simpler but then how many people would have died had he not been removed? I wish this administration used human rights as his primary motives and not WMD.

Unless the US is going to send in tens of thousands of more troops, then the best policy would be to leave and let the Iraqis finish their civil war.

Since Iraq is not in a civil war yet, it would be inadvisable to leave for if we do leave then there will be a civil war.

A war that was created by the US BTW by removing all the Baathists from positions of power in Iraq (see Bremer's Orders).

Do you believe we should have left the Ba'athists in power?

It can easily morph into the premise that the US is already commiting war crimes in battle, and rationalizing and justifying their actions. I see some of their sound bytes coming back in your posts.

And those in uniform who have committed war crimes in battle are being punished in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I wish they get the maximum penalty for all crimes committed but unfortunately, I have no power over that. This act, from my understanding, deals with the CIA and civilians. I hope that this law does not pass at all. I do not think it will and I am praying that it does not.

How can that be racist? Of course, I assume you are thinking that ONLY ARABS can be AQ. Well, color me suprised, you seem to be painting arabs with the "AQ agent material only" brush.

AQ *HAS* recruited white folk in the past. Not that that will protect them, says I....

who r moslems, or moslem converts.

Now bush thinks that inernational law is american laws that everyone in the world has to follow. what a moron.

has anyone noticed ..instead of blithering and blathering....that the title of this thread is..

Bush to legalise some war crimes ?

And then it links to an article that says in it , "that it hopes to clarify what a war crime is "....

For example when convicts in prison return from whatever "work " they are forced in a group to STRIP Naked then all TOGHETHER are FORCED to walk into a shower AREA and afterwards while still naked are cavity searched .


A very HUMILIATING and HUMBLING experiance..but needed to insure they are not sticking weapons up their ass and other contraband.

This would be considered a war crime under the current law.
and this is only ONE example of what is donbe in prison that would considered a war crime under current laws.

BUT we also have from the article this other gem..


Presidents do not make laws .

And at any rate all they are doing is making the law much clearer.


Quote:
Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as "outrages upon [the] personal dignity" of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq --] that fall short of torture.




Admitedly NOT torture ...but humiliating...


WTF these are TERRORIST in prison ...:rolleyes: they need to be humiliated at times to keep order and keep the guards safe ...

Whats more important their humiliation or tthe safety of the prison the prisoners themselves and the guards ?


So whats wrong with CHANGING the stupid fucking law ?

You see?!? This is exactly the sort of thing that happens when you ban Fraternity and Military Hazings! Let us humiliate and degrade eachother again in peace so we can stop humiliating and degrading those poor POWs. :(

:)

Regardless of what you say in protest, if you regard an entire group of people, whether it be an political, ethnic, or religious group ect. as not worthy of human rights, you are indeed bigoted. Al-Qaeda and the rest are political organizations. They employ unsavory and rather despicable (to say the LEAST) methods to acheive their goals, BUT that is no excuse to in even the slightest way emulate them.

Also, see Pyotr's post about torture. Even if you capture an innocent man, if you were to torture him, he would still tell you that he was a terrorist and killed babies or something, and start listing off names or random people as terrorists, on even the SLIGHTEST chance of a reprive. I would. Luckily, at least Bush isn't proposing essentially legalize that. However, he is trying, in essence, to make it so that no officials get punished for psychological torture even if they were to order it or 'overlook' it deliberately

Is the entire Arab world Al aqaeda?

The possibility of getting an innocent man is why we need to make sure we have the right guy. Double check.

I have come to that conclusion myself. :(

I'm a wolf, I admit it.

You know, I really am a pretty peaceful guy. It's just Islamic fundamentalist/world domination types hit a nerve.

And no, I didn't come up with the 'war boner' thing....I think it was..DK? I can't remember, but I did find it funny.

I'm a wolf, I admit it.

You know, I really am a pretty peaceful guy. It's just Islamic fundamentalist/world domination types hit a nerve.

And no, I didn't come up with the 'war boner' thing....I think it was..DK? I can't remember, but I did find it funny.
So, when something 'hits a nerve', your response is to lower yourself to the level of a craven animal?

Interesting. You must throw a real world-beater of a shit-fit when your nose is actually put out of joint.

I would have to agree with you on this.
I have come to that conclusion myself. :(
And it breaks my heart to see it. Well, just got to keep trying.

I'm a wolf, I admit it.

You know, I really am a pretty peaceful guy. It's just Islamic fundamentalist/world domination types hit a nerve.
I'm sorry for suggesting that you're not Christian... I was wrong to say that.

But in fairness you sometimes come across as fundamentalist/world domination type yourself.

The "lolz stroke my war boner" and "kill as many civilians as it takes to win", OTT nationalism, and the 'gun nut' stuff don't help the image.

has anyone noticed ..instead of blithering and blathering....that the title of this thread is..

Bush to legalise some war crimes ?

And then it links to an article that says in it , "that it hopes to clarify what a war crime is "....

For example when convicts in prison return from whatever "work " they are forced in a group to STRIP Naked then all TOGHETHER are FORCED to walk into a shower AREA and afterwards while still naked are cavity searched .


A very HUMILIATING and HUMBLING experiance..but needed to insure they are not sticking weapons up their ass and other contraband.

This would be considered a war crime under the current law.
and this is only ONE example of what is donbe in prison that would considered a war crime under current laws.

BUT we also have from the article this other gem..




Admitedly NOT torture ...but humiliating...


WTF these are TERRORIST in prison ...:rolleyes: they need to be humiliated at times to keep order and keep the guards safe ...

Whats more important their humiliation or tthe safety of the prison the prisoners themselves and the guards ?


So whats wrong with CHANGING the stupid fucking law ?


Right, because the way to get them to stop hating us is to make them feel like shit by crapping on their bible and breaking their psyche. You in any way related to Rumsfeld?

The ONLY way any of this is going to get solved (Al Queda, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Iran, any of it) is by completing the goal of creating a better Iraq while still remaining respectful and compassionate. You can kill a man and piss on his body, and wife will become a terrorist out of spite, or you could kill the man and apologize to his wife. We must use a "it's nothing personal, but we have to do this. We still respect you as people." approach or more and more hatred and terrorism and threats will just keep popping up.

Nice strawman. I applaud you sir, for truly, you are a man of many talents.
I liked it. It shows what a simple world view it is possible for a guy to have. Explains much.

Right, because the way to get them to stop hating us is to make them feel like shit by crapping on their bible and breaking their psyche. You in any way related to Rumsfeld?

The ONLY way any of this is going to get solved (Al Queda, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Iran, any of it) is by completing the goal of creating a better Iraq while still remaining respectful and compassionate. You can kill a man and piss on his body, and wife will become a terrorist out of spite, or you could kill the man and apologize to his wife. We must use a "it's nothing personal, but we have to do this. We still respect you as people." approach or more and more hatred and terrorism and threats will just keep popping up.



Your right they need puupy's and kisses and mothering ...some nice fudge cookies and a Big mac..

WHER THE FUCK DID I SAY YOU SHOULD CRAP ON THEIR KORAN ?

( Muslims do not use bibles ...uninformed one ).

They are in jail what the fuck ?

they need to be convinced to give information to help save other lives...WTF ?


They ARE FUCKING TERRORIST not little old ladies caught speeding !

What the fuck is wrong with the defeatist attaitude bullshit ?

Kill them put them in HOLE they respect THAT .
Treat themnice and give them a hug and they will cut off your head on the internet and send the pictures to your wife tthen have a jihad party and laugh at your stupidity .

They are sworn to end the western way of life ...and KILL you .
Unless of course you would convert to a taliban like system of government.


go ahead give them a cookie


get your arm bit off .

But Ultraextreme Sanity, you've got a Taliban-like government already.

Is the entire Arab world Al aqaeda?

The possibility of getting an innocent man is why we need to make sure we have the right guy. Double check.


As to your first statement, How on earth did you somehow manage to extract that out of what I said?! I said nothing of the sort.

As to your second, And how will we know when we have the right person? The actual terrorist could plead innocence with just as much conviction as an innocent man. You could torture them, but as said before, an innocent man would do anything to make it stop, even to lie. Especially to lie.

Your right they need puupy's and kisses and mothering ...some nice fudge cookies and a Big mac..

WHER THE FUCK DID I SAY YOU SHOULD CRAP ON THEIR KORAN ?

( Muslims do not use bibles ...uninformed one ).

They are in jail what the fuck ?

they need to be convinced to give information to help save other lives...WTF ?


They ARE FUCKING TERRORIST not little old ladies caught speeding !

What the fuck is wrong with the defeatist attaitude bullshit ?

Kill them put them in HOLE they respect THAT .
Treat themnice and give them a hug and they will cut off your head on the internet and send the pictures to your wife tthen have a jihad party and laugh at your stupidity .

They are sworn to end the western way of life ...and KILL you .
Unless of course you would convert to a taliban like system of government.


go ahead give them a cookie


get your arm bit off .

That's what we've been doing, and it's just created more hatred and terrorism. We need to show humane respect for these people so they can realize how wrong they are in their methods.

This is the Christian way of doing so. Bush is lost. If they bite off my arm, I offer them my other. Then my leg. Then my other leg. Turn the other cheek - let them know we're not their enemy, and we wish only the best for them.

Your right they need puupy's and kisses and mothering ...some nice fudge cookies and a Big mac..

WHER THE FUCK DID I SAY YOU SHOULD CRAP ON THEIR KORAN ?

( Muslims do not use bibles ...uninformed one ).

They are in jail what the fuck ?

they need to be convinced to give information to help save other lives...WTF ?


They ARE FUCKING TERRORIST not little old ladies caught speeding !Really? Every single person in there is a terrorist? None of them were captured by mistake?

Really? Every single person in there is a terrorist? None of them were captured by mistake?

Even if they're ALL terrorists, the drive of a terrorist is "these bastards are evil, they're taking over my land, they're killing my friends, they're destroying my country, I have to kill them."

The actions suggested by "Sanity" can and do create a cycle of creating more terrorists with our actions.

Even if they're ALL terrorists, the drive of a terrorist is "these bastards are evil, they're taking over my land, they're killing my friends, they're destroying my country, I have to kill them."

The actions suggested by "Sanity" can and do create a cycle of creating more terrorists with our actions.That's true, too, but I wanted to attack zir argument on the basis of zir essentially saying that they deserved to be tortured by pointing out that at least some of the people didn't. (None of them do, but by zir standards some, but not all, do.)

Your right they need puupy's and kisses and mothering ...some nice fudge cookies and a Big mac..

WHER THE FUCK DID I SAY YOU SHOULD CRAP ON THEIR KORAN ?

( Muslims do not use bibles ...uninformed one ).

They are in jail what the fuck ?

they need to be convinced to give information to help save other lives...WTF ?


They ARE FUCKING TERRORIST not little old ladies caught speeding !

What the fuck is wrong with the defeatist attaitude bullshit ?

Kill them put them in HOLE they respect THAT .
Treat themnice and give them a hug and they will cut off your head on the internet and send the pictures to your wife tthen have a jihad party and laugh at your stupidity .

They are sworn to end the western way of life ...and KILL you .
Unless of course you would convert to a taliban like system of government.


go ahead give them a cookie


get your arm bit off .


http://ephemeron.net/photochops/FeedTroll.jpg

Your right they need puupy's and kisses and mothering ...some nice fudge cookies and a Big mac..

WHER THE FUCK DID I SAY YOU SHOULD CRAP ON THEIR KORAN ?

( Muslims do not use bibles ...uninformed one ).

They are in jail what the fuck ?

they need to be convinced to give information to help save other lives...WTF ?

They ARE FUCKING TERRORIST not little old ladies caught speeding !

What the fuck is wrong with the defeatist attaitude bullshit ?

Kill them put them in HOLE they respect THAT .
Treat themnice and give them a hug and they will cut off your head on the internet and send the pictures to your wife tthen have a jihad party and laugh at your stupidity .

They are sworn to end the western way of life ...and KILL you .
Unless of course you would convert to a taliban like system of government.

go ahead give them a cookie

get your arm bit off .
Bolding mine. I think they would be content if your government quit killing their people, quit bombing their country, and quit messing with their politics.

The rest of your rant is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

BTW, your sense of democracy sucks. There are people in Guantanamo that shouldn't be there. I wonder how you would react if the shoe were on the other foot?

But Ultraextreme Sanity, you've got a Taliban-like government already.
Why, where does he live, Iran? lol

Why, where does he live, Iran? lol
No, he lives in a cave below the White House. :rolleyes:

It would be simpler but then how many people would have died had he not been removed? I wish this administration used human rights as his primary motives and not WMD.
IF "human rights" had been the issue, I really don't think Congress would have voted for war. Saddam had been relatively inactive in killing his own people in the 12 years since the end of the Gulf War.

Since Iraq is not in a civil war yet, it would be inadvisable to leave for if we do leave then there will be a civil war.
I am not alone in thinking that there is a civil war going on in Iraq right now. I also had an earlier thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473862)on that.

So What's Our Role in Iraq's Civil War? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080800941.html)

Do you believe we should have left the Ba'athists in power?
Not all, but certainly some. By disenfranchising all the Sunnis at once, the Bush administration created an instant opposition that led to a huge insurgency.

Surprise ending: Occupation over (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040629-occupation-over.htm)

The biggest failing of the occupation is Iraq's security problems, and many experts now say that perhaps the biggest American mistake was the US decision last Mayto disband the Iraqi army, a poorly equipped force of 400,000 that many key Iraqis now say could have been used to pacify the country.

The decision also put many Iraqis out of a job, and turned them on the US-led coalition, as did the extent of a US-backed program to "de-Baathify," the government, a process designed to remove roughly 60,000 Iraqis from their government jobs, among them 10,000 school teachers. Though these decisions were made in Washington, Bremer implemented them. The order to remove Baathists from government jobs was the first one he signed after arriving in May.

"Often Bremer was making the best of a bad situation,'' says one CPA adviser. "But in the end there were a lot of dumb policies that Bremer helped carry out. He has to bear some of the blame."

And those in uniform who have committed war crimes in battle are being punished in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I wish they get the maximum penalty for all crimes committed but unfortunately, I have no power over that. This act, from my understanding, deals with the CIA and civilians. I hope that this law does not pass at all. I do not think it will and I am praying that it does not.
I also hope that it does not pass as well. This looks bad for the US.