Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

2005 Amnesty International Report...
addi Posted: Thu Jun 2 07:58:51 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ...just came out the other day and wasn't very kind to the U.S., to say the least.
It called the U.S. military prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time."
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the report "outlandish", Bush responded by saying it was "Absurd", and Cheney said, "Frankly, I was offended by it". (Cheney offended...that guy cracks me up)

So what do you non-American (and American)GTers think of all this? Hmm?
Is it all a bunch of hooey by anti-American bashers at AI, or is our administration being hypocritical?


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 08:19:43 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well, I don't know if anybody else has seen it, but a while ago I saw a documentary about a few volunteers (5->10 I think) who were subjected to a week or 2 of "guantanamo".

What happened was that some people who were stationed at guantanamo and people that were contracted to work there (like non-government interrogators and so on) had to treat the volunteers in the same way as they did with the prisoners, to show how they got people to give up information and what not.

To begin with, when they arrive it's a common procedure to have prisoners pee in their pants because they aren't allowed to use a bathroom during the first few days.

Some of the interrogation techniques are questionable, to say the least.

Having a muslim (or anybody) get completely naked in front of all his cell mates and have him jump to the interrogation room like a frog or make him walk like a dog, completely naked and on a leash, to be subjected to a "questioning ring" (basicly you have the guy standing up, naked and blindfolded with about 5-6 interrogators constantly shouting questions at the person, and I do mean constantly and really shouting, and the most stupid questions like "what's your name" and "are you a muslim" and stuff like that, constantly before the subject can even answer, untill he starts to break down) is pretty unreal.

Some of the techniques (for example: sitting naked and blindfolded with your knees bent so you're standing on your feet but your ass isn't really touching the ground, with your back towards a ventilator making you freeze while insanely loud music is being played, for hours on end before the interrogation begins) are even labeled as torture techniques.

One of the guys told the reporters that they even got a special class on how to humiliate muslims and on non-lethal and non-damaging torture techniques (like making people stand or lie in specific positions for hours). And he said that like it was the good all-american way to do it, without any hesistation or whatever. He was proud of his work ("it's and art").

All the volunteers had to go through these things as well, and less than half of them made it through those 2 weeks, the others broke down and wanted to get out because they couldn't take the constant verbal and phsycical abuse anymore. Imagine what these kinds of things do with a person after a year of living like that. They might not be a terrorist when they enter guantanamo, but I'm pretty sure they become one once they leave. I know I'd be.

Add to that the interviews I've seen with people who have been released from there, confirming all these things, and more or less all telling the same kind of experiences, having to go through all of this without being guilty of anything.

Which brings us to another thing: the absence of any judicidal control, the possibility of a government to take prisoners without a trial, etcetera.

For most non-Americans I know, it's really hard to understand that people allow all of this to happen and re-elect the people responsible for it.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 2 08:27:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ok, I am not going to say that bad things dont happen at Guantanmo, as I am quite sure there has been some very severe torture that has been taken place, which is bad. But saying its "the Gulag of our times"? Nevermind the fact that MILLIONS died in Soviet gulags. To me that just makes light(sorry, I dont know a better phrase, but I dont mean it as they are joking or anything) of the amount of people who suffered and what they endured in the Gulags, many, or most being sent there for very minor and incosequential "crimes".


 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 2 09:11:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Good point, meshie.
It's been too long since I've read Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, but i seem to remember some pretty horrific practices carried out by the Soviets on the political prisoners. Perhaps the AI's comparison of Guantanamo Bay to a Gulag was out of line. We know so little about what goes on there because of all the secrecy, so it's difficult to be objective about it.

One point that does disturb me though is our recent pattern of supporting these world organizations when it seems to benefit us, and dismissing them as absurb when we don't like what they say.
For example the bitching that goes on about the U.N. when they don't agree with our foreign policy, and the praise for AI when they comdemned Saddamn and Iraq for human right's abuses. It does come across to the rest of the world as hypocritical.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 10:13:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well, isn't it?


 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 2 10:25:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Well, isn't it?

Why....yes, I believe it is.

and on a slightly different topic
any thoughts on the overwhelming defeat by Dutch voters of the EU constitution. After Frances vote it seems a major blow to the process of a unified European community?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 12:31:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Good point, meshie.
>It's been too long since I've read Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, but i seem to remember some pretty horrific practices carried out by the Soviets on the political prisoners. Perhaps the AI's comparison of Guantanamo Bay to a Gulag was out of line. We know so little about what goes on there because of all the secrecy, so it's difficult to be objective about it.
>
>One point that does disturb me though is our recent pattern of supporting these world organizations when it seems to benefit us, and dismissing them as absurb when we don't like what they say.
>For example the bitching that goes on about the U.N. when they don't agree with our foreign policy, and the praise for AI when they comdemned Saddamn and Iraq for human right's abuses. It does come across to the rest of the world as hypocritical.
>
Let me get this straight - when you praise someone for getting it right, and trashing them when they get it wrong is hypocritical ?


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 12:32:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah, but the whole referendum thing was flawed from the start.

In France, and to a lesser extent in Holland as well, the referendum was doomed from the very beginning. People didn't vote for/against the european constitution, they voted against their governments. And a lot of people also voted against it because they don't want Turkey to join the EU, which has nothing to do with the constitution they were voting about, but still, they used it as a contra arguement.

Perhaps the most important flaw of holding a referendum about it is the fact that the "constitution" is named like that, you could have given it a different name and nobody would have made such a fuss about it, since it's mostly about agreements on the creation of laws and treaties, but not so much about things that are really affecting people, contrary to earlier referenda like with the Maastricht treaty, where people were thinking about a change of currency and it's implications.

European countries have a lot of turbulent history behind them, and most are extremely weary when it comes to giving any form of legislative power out of hands, and the public is also very weary of stuff that's going on over their heads.

Flawed publicity is also a major part of the problem. The sad reality is that most people don't have a clue to what the "constitution" contains, and a lot of people don't really know what's going on on a European level in general or don't really trust it too much. Almost no information is being spread here. Unless you actually search for it yourself, the media doesn't tell you much about it here in Belgium. From what I've seen in France and the Netherlands, it wasn't much better there. You had people going to vote based on nothing else but their general feeling towards Europe, and a lot of them admitted in interviews at the poll offices that they had no idea what was actually in the "constitution".

Also, you have to keep in mind that Europe is a very, very culturally diverse group of countries. And few of them, if any, want a sort of "united states of europe" if you catch my drift. The general fear is that the specific identities of the different countries will fade with time, and nobody wants that. Most people still feel Flemish, Dutch, French, German, whatever, and European second to that.

In Belgium the government decided not to hold a referendum, which was the smart thing to do I think. The countries who are holding one probably used it as some sort of stunt to show how much they cared about the voice of the people, but it turned around and bit them in the ass. I don't see why they decided to hold a referendum about this while knowing in advance that most people didn't have a clue about what was going on, and because of it were made to pull the cart of a few other people who tried to use the referendum to bring down the establishment. Look at what's happened in France.

Keep in mind though that the constitution isn't dead yet. Also, even if it is, the chance that something better will emerge is highly unlikely. You have to understand that this is a consensus between 25 countries, the complexity and achievement is close to superhuman if you ask me.

The deal was that all 25 countries had to approve it, and if not, as long as there are 20 countries voting for it, a second round of voting can be held.

It's sad that 2 of the founding nations of the EU voted against it, true, but I also think it will backfire on them in the long run. I don't think that Europe is going to crumble because of this, as much as some people might regret that.

I could go on and on about this, but I'll try to limit the "failure" to the most important factors:

- malcontentment with the internal government (explained already)
- lack of information
- increasing influence of extreme right (which is increasing nationalism more and more, which implies a distaste for the EU)

And the biggest mistake the European Union has made, and is making, is that it's growing way too fast.

People in France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands,... wanted to keep the EU limited to western Europe, and I believe they should have done so too.

And if they did want to expand, I believe, and many other people with me, that they should have made sure that the internal cuisine was in order before increasing in size, which only complicates things.

Stuff like this constitution should have been handled when the EU was still limited to the founding countries, or perhaps the 15, instead of the 25 now. If they had passed this earlier, there would be no discussion, joining countries would just have to take it if they wanted to join, no discussion about it and no mess.

And the biggest mistake the EU is threatening to make, when it comes to credibility towards it's own public, is even thinking about allowing Turkey to join, for a whole spectrum of reasons that the public wants to keep it out of the EU.



This won't be the deathblow to the EU, or anything close to it, but it should open some eyes for those who are calling the shots that they have some thinking to do.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 12:32:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Let me get this straight - when you praise someone for getting it right, and trashing them when they get it wrong is hypocritical ?

So they're only right when they say what the US wants to hear?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 12:34:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  An excerpt from Natan Sharansky's interview with Time Magazine, shows the failings of Amnesty International:

I have very serious criticisms of Amnesty. There is no moral clarity. It doesn't differentiate between what I call fear societies and free societies. In the democratic world, there are violations of human rights, but they are revealed and dealt with. In a fear society, there are no violations of human rights because human rights just don't exist. All citizens are deprived of those rights. Amnesty International says it doesn't support or oppose any political system, so it ends up with reports that show a moral equivalence between, for example, Israel and the terrorist regimes that attack it.

HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE WORLD'S VIEW OF ISRAEL'S HUMAN-RIGHTS RECORD?

Amnesty doesn't examine Hamas, only Israel. It ignores violations by terrorist organizations. We find the unfortunate situation that somehow there's no difference between terrorists targeting civilians and democratic countries targeting terrorists.

SO ISRAEL IS THE FOCUS OF HUMAN-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS BECAUSE IT HAS DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS THAT MAKE PROTEST POSSIBLE?

Look, violations by Israel are on the world's agenda, but Sudan's aren't. Human-rights organizations create an atmosphere in which dictatorial regimes dictate the human-rights agenda of the entire world.




 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 12:39:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I wouldn't say that they're dealt with, hif.

Human rights are being violated at guantanamo as we speak, what's happening with that?

And I don't think you can call America a fear-free society either, lol.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:08:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I wouldn't say that they're dealt with, hif.
>
>Human rights are being violated at guantanamo as we speak, what's happening with that?
>
which human rights would that be ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:10:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I wouldn't say that they're dealt with, hif.
>
why not ?


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:14:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b1udhr.htm

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.


Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:21:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Exactly how does this apply to prisoners of war ?



 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:27:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Let me get this straight - when you praise someone for getting it right, and trashing them when they get it wrong is hypocritical ?

yup
In the context of what i am talking about it's very hypocritical.

Example: A friend defends you for a choice you make to get in a fight at a club one night. You call him "wise and fair and a true friend".
The next night you go to the same place and end up getting in a fight again. This time the friend sees things a little differently, and decides that he won't back you because he saw that you were wrong in starting the fight this night. Your reaction to your good friend totally changes, and you call him "useless, a liar, and no longer your friend".

That is clearly being a hypocritical "fair weather" friend, and many people all over the world now see the U.S. acting that way with the U.N., AI, and other international organizations. They hear us singing their praises and talking of their importance when it's in agreement with our political stance on a matter, but then they see us ignore or lash out against what these same organizations say when it goes against what this administration wants.
In my view that's pretty clear cut political hypocracy.



 
beetlebum Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:28:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe has got you there, Hif. International human rights standards are being violated at Guantanamo, regardless of what actually goes on inside (torture, starvation, etc.).

Also, in regards to Natan Sharansky's comments-- the whole point of human rights is that they *are* applicable to *every* human being, and thus, should be applied universally, whether or not the person suffering these human rights violations is a terrorist or not. Ensuring universal application is the point of Amnesty International, which is why the US is always criticized for using the dealth penalty and the recent anti-terrorist legislation. Amnesty International doesn't play favorites; there's simply no incentive to do so.

What if some of those people at Guantanamo (or any other prison where the media has minimal to no access) are being wrongfully held? They could be there for the next twenty or fifty or seventy years, without access to a lawyer or a trial, and no way of protesting or communicating their innocence. Enforcing human rights universally is meant to help the innocent as much as it, perhaps unfortunately, helps the guilty.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:28:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Human rights apply to prisoners of war too, hif.

You can't, for example, take a prisoner of war and carve him up and roast him for your own pleasure, because he's a prisoner of war and therefor not human anymore.



All the articles listed below cover international conflicts. Internal conflicts are covered by article 3.

(Art 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"
"Members of the armed forces"
"militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
"Persons who accompany the armed forces"
"Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
"Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms"
(Art 5):"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
(Art 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
(Art 13): "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
(Art 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
(Art 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."
(Art 27): "Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war"
(Art 33): "Members of the medical personnel and chaplains while retained by the Detaining Power with a view to assisting prisoners of war, shall not be considered as prisoners of war. They shall, however, receive as a minimum the benefits and protection of the present Convention, and shall also be granted all facilities necessary to provide for the medical care of, and religious ministration to prisoners of war."
(Art 39): "Prisoners of war, with the exception of officers, must salute and show to all officers of the Detaining Power the external marks of respect provided for by the regulations applying in their own forces."
(Art 42): "The use of weapons against prisoners of war, especially against those who are escaping or attempting to escape, shall constitute an extreme measure, which shall always be preceded by warnings appropriate to the circumstances."
(Art 69): "Immediately upon prisoners of war falling into its power, the Detaining Power shall inform them and the Powers on which they depend, through the Protecting Power, of the measures taken to carry out the provisions of the present Section. They shall likewise inform the parties concerned of any subsequent modifications of such measures."
(Art 88): "Officers, non-commissioned officers and men who are prisoners of war undergoing a disciplinary or judicial punishment, shall not be subjected to more severe treatment than that applied in respect of the same punishment to members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power of equivalent rank."
(Art 89): Provides for fines, discontinuance of privileges above those required by the Convention, fatigue duties up to two hours per day and confinement. "In no case shall disciplinary punishments be inhuman, brutal or dangerous to the health of prisoners of war."

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


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:30:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:
>Christophe has got you there, Hif. International human rights standards are being violated at Guantanamo, regardless of what actually goes on inside (torture, starvation, etc.).
>
>Also, in regards to Natan Sharansky's comments-- the whole point of human rights is that they *are* applicable to *every* human being, and thus, should be applied universally, whether or not the person suffering these human rights violations is a terrorist or not. Ensuring universal application is the point of Amnesty International, which is why the US is always criticized for using the dealth penalty and the recent anti-terrorist legislation. Amnesty International doesn't play favorites; there's simply no incentive to do so.
>
>What if some of those people at Guantanamo (or any other prison where the media has minimal to no access) are being wrongfully held? They could be there for the next twenty or fifty or seventy years, without access to a lawyer or a trial, and no way of protesting or communicating their innocence. Enforcing human rights universally is meant to help the innocent as much as it, perhaps unfortunately, helps the guilty.
>
These are not captured criminals, they are prisoners of war.
When did POW's ever get lawyers and trials ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:32:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Human rights apply to prisoners of war too, hif.
>
>You can't, for example, take a prisoner of war and carve him up and roast him for your own pleasure, because he's a prisoner of war and therefor not human anymore.
>
>
>
>All the articles listed below cover international conflicts. Internal conflicts are covered by article 3.
>
>(Art 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"
>"Members of the armed forces"
>"militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
>"Persons who accompany the armed forces"
>"Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
>"Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms"
>(Art 5):"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
>(Art 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
>(Art 13): "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
>(Art 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
>(Art 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."
>(Art 27): "Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war"
>(Art 33): "Members of the medical personnel and chaplains while retained by the Detaining Power with a view to assisting prisoners of war, shall not be considered as prisoners of war. They shall, however, receive as a minimum the benefits and protection of the present Convention, and shall also be granted all facilities necessary to provide for the medical care of, and religious ministration to prisoners of war."
>(Art 39): "Prisoners of war, with the exception of officers, must salute and show to all officers of the Detaining Power the external marks of respect provided for by the regulations applying in their own forces."
>(Art 42): "The use of weapons against prisoners of war, especially against those who are escaping or attempting to escape, shall constitute an extreme measure, which shall always be preceded by warnings appropriate to the circumstances."
>(Art 69): "Immediately upon prisoners of war falling into its power, the Detaining Power shall inform them and the Powers on which they depend, through the Protecting Power, of the measures taken to carry out the provisions of the present Section. They shall likewise inform the parties concerned of any subsequent modifications of such measures."
>(Art 88): "Officers, non-commissioned officers and men who are prisoners of war undergoing a disciplinary or judicial punishment, shall not be subjected to more severe treatment than that applied in respect of the same punishment to members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power of equivalent rank."
>(Art 89): Provides for fines, discontinuance of privileges above those required by the Convention, fatigue duties up to two hours per day and confinement. "In no case shall disciplinary punishments be inhuman, brutal or dangerous to the health of prisoners of war."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
>
Sorry your argument carries no merit, because the Geneva convention absolutely does not apply to the prisoners at GTMO.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:36:53 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) primarily regarded the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs)


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


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:41:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>The Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) primarily regarded the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs)
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
>
Perhaps you should read article 4


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:44:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Perhaps you should read it a little better.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:48:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510052004

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_gitmo



Are you saying these organisations don't have a clue about the rights of pow's and prisoners?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:53:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Perhaps you should read it a little better.
>
Exactly where do the GTMO prisoners conform to anything in article 4 ?


 
beetlebum Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:55:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>Perhaps you should read it a little better.
>>
>Exactly where do the GTMO prisoners conform to anything in article 4 ?

Well then what *do* they conform to? They must fall under a heading somewhere.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:56:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Art 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Art 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines who is a prisoner of war and, therefor, a protected person under GCIII. Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.




Abd if that doesn't float your boat:


Art 5 apply all combatants, should any doubt arise as to whether persons is a lawful combatant they will be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:57:51 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  abd = and


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 13:58:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>Perhaps you should read it a little better.
>>>
>>Exactly where do the GTMO prisoners conform to anything in article 4 ?
>
>Well then what *do* they conform to? They must fall under a heading somewhere.
>
Why ?
When has a war like this ever been fought ?


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 14:00:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>When has a war like this ever been fought ?

That's like saying you shouldn't pay taxes because there's no country where nobody dodges them.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 14:02:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Art 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Art 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines who is a prisoner of war and, therefor, a protected person under GCIII. Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
>4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
>4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
>that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
>that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
>that of carrying arms openly;
>that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
>4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
>4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
>4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
>
Yeah, so what ? The prisoners at GTMO do not conform to a single item in article 4.
>

>Abd if that doesn't float your boat:
>
>
>Art 5 apply all combatants, should any doubt arise as to whether persons is a lawful combatant they will be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
>
And article 5 fails to define what a lawful combatant is and is still being debated.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 14:03:09 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also, if that's the way you see it, the decapitations were entirely legal.


 
FN Posted: Thu Jun 2 14:04:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Yeah, so what ? The prisoners at GTMO do not conform to a single item in article 4.

I think you should read it again then.

What do they conform to, hif?

>And article 5 fails to define what a lawful combatant is and is still being debated.

It also says that if there's any doubt, before a trial has been held to determine it, people should be treated as if being a lawful combatant.


 
webmaster Posted: Thu Jun 2 14:14:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It is impossible to draw a line on what should and should not be done. On one hand, you have to treat them with respect and rights, on the other hand, these people are trying to bomb your country and you need to make them talk.

If disrepecting or torturing a prisoner makes him confess and as a result prevents 911 and saves three thousand lives, would you be against it?

In such a situation, there is no ideal solution. I say do what it takes, just don't get caught.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 14:17:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Also, if that's the way you see it, the decapitations were entirely legal.
>
sure, murder is always legal no matter what.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 14:20:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Yeah, so what ? The prisoners at GTMO do not conform to a single item in article 4.
>
>I think you should read it again then.
>
>What do they conform to, hif?
>
I dunno, you tell me, you're so sure the Geneva convention applies to them.
>>And article 5 fails to define what a lawful combatant is and is still being debated.
>
>It also says that if there's any doubt, before a trial has been held to determine it, people should be treated as if being a lawful combatant.
>
Maybe that's why it's still being debated.
And then of course, there is the doubt that they are being treated inhumanely at GTMO.
I, for one doubt that they are being treated inhumanely.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 14:23:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  webmaster said:
>It is impossible to draw a line on what should and should not be done. On one hand, you have to treat them with respect and rights, on the other hand, these people are trying to bomb your country and you need to make them talk.
>
>If disrepecting or torturing a prisoner makes him confess and as a result prevents 911 and saves three thousand lives, would you be against it?
>
>In such a situation, there is no ideal solution. I say do what it takes, just don't get caught.
>
Apparently a lot of people think they should have lawyers and get trials.
Imagine if all the Japanese and German POW's in WW2 had lawyers and got trials.
We would still be sorting that shit out today.
It's lunacy to think a POW should get legal representation and a guarantee of a trial. Who would pay for it ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 14:41:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Let me get this straight - when you praise someone for getting it right, and trashing them when they get it wrong is hypocritical ?
>
>yup
>In the context of what i am talking about it's very hypocritical.
>
>Example: A friend defends you for a choice you make to get in a fight at a club one night. You call him "wise and fair and a true friend".
>The next night you go to the same place and end up getting in a fight again. This time the friend sees things a little differently, and decides that he won't back you because he saw that you were wrong in starting the fight this night. Your reaction to your good friend totally changes, and you call him "useless, a liar, and no longer your friend".
>
>That is clearly being a hypocritical "fair weather" friend, and many people all over the world now see the U.S. acting that way with the U.N., AI, and other international organizations. They hear us singing their praises and talking of their importance when it's in agreement with our political stance on a matter, but then they see us ignore or lash out against what these same organizations say when it goes against what this administration wants.
>In my view that's pretty clear cut political hypocracy.
>
In the first place "political hypocrisy" is the norm for politics whether you're talking liberal or conservative.
I don't recall our govt "singing the praises" of either organization in recent memory. I have heard from time to time (albeit rarely), our govt being in agreement with something that was said or published by these two very questionable organizations, but no one singing their praises.


 
Posted: Thu Jun 2 15:04:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  38 fucking posts in this thread after one morning at work.

damnit, this is just the kind of thread i was looking to get involved in now, too. Alas, coming in nearly 40 posts late isn't a terribly fashionable entrance, so I'll just say this: buttsex.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Jun 2 16:36:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>damnit, this is just the kind of thread i was looking to get involved in now, too. Alas, coming in nearly 40 posts late isn't a terribly fashionable entrance, so I'll just say this: buttsex.

Truly artful.


Anyway, my input is this:

I think that the whole premise of a POW camp is disgusting in the first place. It doesn't matter the degrees to which a POW camp is awful because the violation of human rights still occurs [detainment against will]. And the fact that there's a need for a POW camp is even worse.

But I suppose that's all my idealistic ramble. Realistically, my input has no use.

Well, reality wise, I think the US should stop pretending it's as flawless as it's fronting to be, and I think the world should stop freaking out over every little unpolished aspect of the US' appearance. All countries make mistakes and the US just happens to be making a nice handful lately. Well... maybe not LATELY. But you know what I mean.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 16:48:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>CriminalSaint said:
>>damnit, this is just the kind of thread i was looking to get involved in now, too. Alas, coming in nearly 40 posts late isn't a terribly fashionable entrance, so I'll just say this: buttsex.
>
>Truly artful.
>
>
>Anyway, my input is this:
>
>I think that the whole premise of a POW camp is disgusting in the first place. It doesn't matter the degrees to which a POW camp is awful because the violation of human rights still occurs [detainment against will]. And the fact that there's a need for a POW camp is even worse.
>
>But I suppose that's all my idealistic ramble. Realistically, my input has no use.
>
>Well, reality wise, I think the US should stop pretending it's as flawless as it's fronting to be, and I think the world should stop freaking out over every little unpolished aspect of the US' appearance. All countries make mistakes and the US just happens to be making a nice handful lately. Well... maybe not LATELY. But you know what I mean.
>
How bout some constructive input.
What would you do with the captured terrorists at GTMO ?


 
JAZER Posted: Thu Jun 2 16:48:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  After reading everyones post and paying close attention to Hif, Chris and JQ, I am going to have to go with my neighbor in the ville. I agree with everything that Hif is saying.

Rednecks Unite
Dyslexics Untie


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 16:53:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  JAZER said:
>After reading everyones post and paying close attention to Hif, Chris and JQ, I am going to have to go with my neighbor in the ville. I agree with everything that Hif is saying.
>
>Rednecks Unite
>Dyslexics Untie
>
I appreciate that dude, but you realize that because of your stance here, Libra will never call you again.
LOL


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Jun 2 17:06:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>How bout some constructive input.
>What would you do with the captured terrorists at GTMO ?

lol. Constructive? Nah. I don't give constructive input. All of the stuff I want done is way too idealistic for it to really happen.

But since you asked,

I would turn them loose on an island with nothing but clothing and food supplies [seeds and maybe a few numbers of livestock??] and tell them to learn to live on the land.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 2 17:37:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>In the first place "political hypocrisy" is the norm for politics whether you're talking liberal or conservative.

Excuse me, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? So the fuck what? I don't care if it's liberals or conservatives, political hypocrisy should not be accepted as the norm with a shrug of our shoulders and a sigh. We should point it out when we see it and denounce it for what it is, whether it's coming from democrats or republicans.

>I don't recall our govt "singing the praises" of either organization in recent memory.

Then you haven't been paying attention, hif. Bush consistantly used the U.N. resolution # (?) in public speeches as one of his trumped up justifications to invade Iraq. When it is in HIS interest they are a credible organization. When they do not see eye to eye with him then he and his cronies ignore what they have to say. He did the same thing using Amnesty's report on the abuses in Iraq under Saddam. They fit his purposes at the time so it was a valid report and organization. However, now that AI is pointing the finger at the U.S. the white house is changing their tune about them.
The leaders of the world see this. You're a fool if you think it won't have repercussions down the road in our relationships with other leaders when a crisis comes up.
Why the fuck should North Korea listen to anyone, when they see the U.S. thumbing it's nose blatantly at the world right now. There will be consequences down the road for our actions right now.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 19:05:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>In the first place "political hypocrisy" is the norm for politics whether you're talking liberal or conservative.
>
>Excuse me, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? So the fuck what? I don't care if it's liberals or conservatives, political hypocrisy should not be accepted as the norm with a shrug of our shoulders and a sigh. We should point it out when we see it and denounce it for what it is, whether it's coming from democrats or republicans.
>
It has always been that way, since the first politician, that is the nature of politics dude. If you want a saint in office you better find a different planet to occupy.
>>I don't recall our govt "singing the praises" of either organization in recent memory.
>
>Then you haven't been paying attention, hif. Bush consistantly used the U.N. resolution # (?) in public speeches as one of his trumped up justifications to invade Iraq. When it is in HIS interest they are a credible organization. When they do not see eye to eye with him then he and his cronies ignore what they have to say. He did the same thing using Amnesty's report on the abuses in Iraq under Saddam. They fit his purposes at the time so it was a valid report and organization. However, now that AI is pointing the finger at the U.S. the white house is changing their tune about them.
>The leaders of the world see this. You're a fool if you think it won't have repercussions down the road in our relationships with other leaders when a crisis comes up.
>Why the fuck should North Korea listen to anyone, when they see the U.S. thumbing it's nose blatantly at the world right now. There will be consequences down the road for our actions right now.
>
I'm not buying it addie.
You can't predict the future any better than me. All your peers were saying that we were going to have body bags by the thousands in a quagmire while trying to take down Saddam.
North Korea should listen because the world is telling them to listen, precisely what Saddam did not do

You're worried about consequences because of our hypocrisy ?
Isn't every govt on the planet guilty of hypocrisy ? or even worse if it's a despotic regime ? No government is innocent of hypocrisy unless there are no politicians in said government.
And you want our government to stop being hypocrital so we don't piss off the other hypocrites ?
The people we are fighting right now don't give a damn what our government says or does, their only purpose in life is to kill Americans. If we completely left the middle east right now, they would just bring the fight over here. Don't you get that ?
Consequences be damned. Of course there will be consequences for our actions right now, but you can't predict what they will be.
As for the UN and AI, they are both worthless pieces of shit in my opinion.
But we are a member of the UN and that is the body that gave us the authority to take Saddam out. It was the right thing to do, and the world is a better place for it. We tried to play by the rules and now you are using it against your own govt.
As I said before, there was no praise for either body from our govt. Some agreement with what they published, but no praise. That is not hypocritical, but then again you have said that Dubya lied about the WMD's even though the entire world believed it to be true.



 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 2 20:43:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>All your peers were saying that we were going to have body bags by the thousands in a quagmire while trying to take down Saddam.

There have been 1847 coalition troop deaths, 1663 Americans, 89 Britons, 10
Bulgarians ... two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of May 31, 2005.
Every day that count grows...every day. Do you see an end? Are they just going to fold up their tents and leave next month? Every report I've heard (even from some Bush supportors) says we need to assume at a minimum another 5 years of this. That's optimistic in my view.
And I have said this before but i guess it needs to be said again; now that we're there we can't leave. Pulling out would be a big mistake at this point. Our troops need to be supported. And there's nothing hypocritical about wanting our soldiers to do their best and return home safely, and at the same time detesting Bush for getting us in there in the first place.

>You're worried about consequences because of our hypocrisy ?

I'm an idealist..and perhaps an arrogant American idealist too. I think we are a great country, with a powerful economy, and a superior fighting force. I believe it's our duty to lead by example. To those whom much is given, much is expected. So, yes, I do think that America should set a very high standard, and maybe I'm naive, but I think there is a history of others looking to us for that sense of leadership and fairness, and "doing the right thing". I believe we have slipped down too many notches unnecessarily in the past few years, and that it will have negative consequences for stablity and peace elsewhere in the world down the road. This cowboy "us against the world" mentality is a dangerous game. The concept of diplomacy and compromise has been flushed down the toilet.

>Isn't every govt on the planet guilty of hypocrisy ?

Yes, but it's not a case of some leader being hypocritical or not hypocritical. It's a matter of degrees. I know it's hard for conservatives to grasp that fuzzy concept of grayness, but it's a fact. We're all human on this planet and we're all hypocrits to some degree...some less and some more. So if you're the leader of the most powerful country on this planet, at this moment in time, I believe keeping your hyprocracy to a minimum is very important. It's a matter of opinion, but I see Bush as the reigning king of hypocracy, both in his foreign policy and in his overtly religiously tainted domestic policies.

>The people we are fighting right now don't give a damn what our government says or does,

Understood, and please don't confuse my dislike of Bush as being soft on those people. What they do is a terrible thing. I'm concerned about all those that AREN'T fighting us at the moment. I don't want that group to grow, and I want our allies to respect and support us, just as we should respect and support them..large or small.



>As for the UN and AI, they are both worthless pieces of shit in my opinion.

Noted : )


>That is not hypocritical, but then again you have said that Dubya lied about the WMD's even though the entire world believed it to be true.

I still believe to this day that the top dogs in this administration twisted what facts they had and fed us half truths and purposely decieved the public on the matter of Saddam's threat to the world, because they were hell bent on invading Iraq. Ther's too much evidence surfacing now for an intelligent person to believe otherwise.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 2 21:53:14 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>I'm an idealist..and perhaps an arrogant American idealist too. I think we are a great country, with a powerful economy, and a superior fighting force. I believe it's our duty to lead by example. To those whom much is given, much is expected. So, yes, I do think that America should set a very high standard, and maybe I'm naive, but I think there is a history of others looking to us for that sense of leadership and fairness, and "doing the right thing". I believe we have slipped down too many notches unnecessarily in the past few years, and that it will have negative consequences for stablity and peace elsewhere in the world down the road. This cowboy "us against the world" mentality is a dangerous game. The concept of diplomacy and compromise has been flushed down the toilet.
>
It's my opinion that diplomacy and compromise have proven to be totally uneffective against religious zealots that exist only to kill Americans.
As for others looking to us for leadership, that's a lot of crap.
I would like to see a world poll on how many would look to us for leadership and how many would like to see us fail.
Anti-Americanism is rampant in the world and a lot of it can be layed at the feet of the left wing press and the hate America first movement here at home.
I would also like to see some evidence that Dubya knew there were no WMD's as you alluded to in your post.
That wouldn't make any sense at all to lie about that since it wasn't even the main reason for the war as your liberal press spun it.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Jun 2 22:10:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Bush consistantly used the U.N. resolution #

I have a feeling you're talking about 1441...

Someone double check me on that, though.


 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 2 22:24:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:


>I have a feeling you're talking about 1441...
>
>Someone double check me on that, though.

that sounds right. thanks, innocence.
I seem to be remembering the big things and forgetting the small details lately : )


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu Jun 2 22:51:39 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>It's my opinion that diplomacy and compromise have proven to be totally uneffective against religious zealots that exist only to kill Americans.


If America had a postive foreign policy, as opposed to a meddling one, America would be safe. Being a Peacekeeper comes to mind. That would work. The reason why they exist is because of American policy.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 3 05:47:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's my opinion that diplomacy and compromise have proven to be totally uneffective against religious zealots that exist only to kill Americans.

And here's the tricky part: why do these people exist, and don't go up against for example Europe, Russia, Japan, China?

>As for others looking to us for leadership, that's a lot of crap.

I think during times like WO II perhaps, but America has indeed lost just about all of its foreign credibility. The gorvernment at least.

>I would like to see a world poll on how many would look to us for leadership and how many would like to see us fail.

That's another one of those paranoid trains of thinking which leads up to a chainreaction to a lot more of negative feelings towards America.

The world isn't out to get you, unlike perhaps what the people you vote you want to make you believe, you're not that important, get over it. You act like the whole world wakes up thinking about America and goes to sleep thinking about it.

Imagine if only a fraction of the cost of the war had been spent on homeland security, educational programs, whatever. With that kind of money, and the costs are still running, I'm pretty sure you could create the big brother society you're after. Problem solved.

>Anti-Americanism is rampant in the world and a lot of it can be layed at the feet of the left wing press and the hate America first movement here at home.

A lot of it can be layed at the feet of the right wing press, hif. Being a non-American, I can see that resentment against america (which isn't "anti-americanism") has never been greater. Why? Because people think that the bullshit is over the top, and they're fine with that, but not when it causes wars. And most people don't deal with arrogance too well either, that's another sad truth I'm familiar with ;o)

>I would also like to see some evidence that Dubya knew there were no WMD's as you alluded to in your post.

Yeah, let's scan his brain.

>That wouldn't make any sense at all to lie about that since it wasn't even the main reason for the war as your liberal press spun it.

It would make sense. I've read an interview a year or 2 ago about a guy who was in the meeting with the president and all the top ranking people after the 2001 attacks having to decide what the course of action would be, and according to him figures like Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (I believe it was wolfowitz that started it) immediately started saying that Saddam probably had something to do with it, based on nothing at all. Even when experts, like the guy who gave the interview, said he probably didn't have anything to do with it, they kept on pushing to strike back at Saddam as fast as possible.

That sounds quite believable to me, yeah, keeping in mind what followed.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 3 05:50:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>Well, reality wise, I think the US should stop pretending it's as flawless as it's fronting to be, and I think the world should stop freaking out over every little unpolished aspect of the US' appearance. All countries make mistakes and the US just happens to be making a nice handful lately. Well... maybe not LATELY. But you know what I mean.

Why is the world freaking out about it you think?

America is posing like the saviour of the world, and everybody knows that it isn't, yet they still try and keep up the charade.

And "unpolished aspects", I dunnow, but if there has ever been an understatement it's probably that one.



Also, I wonder, why isn't there more opposition against the war in America itself? It's sucking the economy down the drain, especially in the long run, and then what?


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Jun 3 06:12:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A friend of mine was a Royal MArine during the Vietnam era (in fact he trained dogs in Malaysia for use in Vietnam).

As a marine he went through considerable torture training in Salisbury plain England, a lot of you fuckers were there too, out of a class of 40, no Americans completed the course successfully (a common trend). During that time my friend endured all forms of torture, sensory deprivation, physical abuse, mental abuse, denied food or water it's designed to break you. In my opinion our elite units struggled through it and many dont make it, if you're willing to do it to your own men, then it's fine to do to the enemy because obviously 'our' training is based on 'their' practices of toruture.


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Jun 3 06:25:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well fuck me, I had a long well thought out post all typed up, where the hell did it go!?!? I really cant be bothered to type that all again.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 3 07:09:29 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>It's my opinion that diplomacy and compromise have proven to be totally uneffective against religious zealots that exist only to kill Americans.
>
>And here's the tricky part: why do these people exist, and don't go up against for example Europe, Russia, Japan, China?
>
Interesting that you left out Spain, Bali, and Chechnya.
>>As for others looking to us for leadership, that's a lot of crap.
>
>I think during times like WO II perhaps, but America has indeed lost just about all of its foreign credibility. The gorvernment at least.
>
That's a two-way street my friend, I think you will find that Europe has lost it's credibility with most Americans as well.
>
>The world isn't out to get you, unlike perhaps what the people you vote you want to make you believe, you're not that important, get over it. You act like the whole world wakes up thinking about America and goes to sleep thinking about it.
>
Ah, but America is just that important.
We are the world's leading manufacturer and consumer of the world's commodities.
If our economy were to fail, all the industrialized countries of the world would follow suit.
Plus we've got kick-ass military.
>Imagine if only a fraction of the cost of the war had been spent on homeland security, educational programs, whatever. With that kind of money, and the costs are still running, I'm pretty sure you could create the big brother society you're after. Problem solved.
>
You've got to be kidding !
In terms of cash, this war hasn't cost that much. It wouldn't even buy half of Jacques Chirac's wine cellar.
>>Anti-Americanism is rampant in the world and a lot of it can be layed at the feet of the left wing press and the hate America first movement here at home.
>
>A lot of it can be layed at the feet of the right wing press, hif. Being a non-American, I can see that resentment against america (which isn't "anti-americanism") has never been greater. Why? Because people think that the bullshit is over the top, and they're fine with that, but not when it causes wars. And most people don't deal with arrogance too well either, that's another sad truth I'm familiar with ;o)
>
Right wing press ?
Show me some.
>>I would also like to see some evidence that Dubya knew there were no WMD's as you alluded to in your post.
>
>Yeah, let's scan his brain.
>
Um, the intelligence agencies of Belgium, Germany, France, Russia, England, and the rest of the world were all convinced that Saddam was stockpiling WMD's, so how is it that Dubya was lying about them ?
>>That wouldn't make any sense at all to lie about that since it wasn't even the main reason for the war as your liberal press spun it.
>
>It would make sense. I've read an interview a year or 2 ago about a guy who was in the meeting with the president and all the top ranking people after the 2001 attacks having to decide what the course of action would be, and according to him figures like Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (I believe it was wolfowitz that started it) immediately started saying that Saddam probably had something to do with it, based on nothing at all. Even when experts, like the guy who gave the interview, said he probably didn't have anything to do with it, they kept on pushing to strike back at Saddam as fast as possible.
>
>That sounds quite believable to me, yeah, keeping in mind what followed.
>
Bullshit
No one has ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
In fact the govt has gone out of it's way to make that clear.
The war in Iraq has absoutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Lying about WMD's in Iraq would not benefit Dubya simply because that is only one of may reasons why we are there and a small one at that.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 3 07:25:29 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  a new Washington Post/ABC poll indicates shaky public support for the President's decision to go to war in Iraq. For the first time, a majority of 51 percent called the war a mistake.


And that number will just continue to rise as the months go by.
Can you say, "Domestic conflict ala Vietnam deja vu"? Good..I knew you could.

(Close your eyes now if cussing offends you)
Well, D'uh! Fucking moron stupid ass average American citizen! If half of our population had a half a wit they'd be half wits.




 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 3 07:33:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>You've got to be kidding !
>In terms of cash, this war hasn't cost that much. It wouldn't even buy half of Jacques Chirac's wine cellar.



The Cost of War in Iraq is estimated to reach $207.5 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005).
The amount is based on the National Priorities Project analysis of what Congress has allocated for the Iraq War, plus the most recent request by the Bush Administration for additional funding. To date, four supplemental requests have been made by the Administration for funding, and Congress has appropriated funding with only minor changes to the first three. The first included approximately $54.4 billion for the Iraq War (enacted in April 2003); the second $70.6 billion (enacted November 2003), and the third $21.5 billion (passed as part of regular appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2005). The Administration made a fourth request in February 2005 for $81.9 billion of which $61 billion is related to the Iraq War. Numbers will be revised again when Congress passes new legislation.

Chirac must have a damn fine wine cellar



>No one has ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
>In fact the govt has gone out of it's way to make that clear.

I wish I could live in the make believe land you inhabit. The town sign must read:
"Welcome to Revisionistsville, KY. Where facts are denied, and blinders are required."






 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 3 07:52:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Although no established links between Iraq and 9/11 have ever been proven, the findings of the bipartisan commission come as a direct challenge to one of the Bush administration's main justifications for war.

Over the past two years, Vice President Dick Cheney in particular has aggressively pushed the notion of an Iraq-Al-Qaeda alliance, describing it in dire terms.


Cheney on October 10, 2003: "He also has an established relationship with al-Qaeda, providing training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs."
That was Cheney in October 2003. In January of this year, Cheney said, "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection and that he was "very confident there was an established relationship." As recently as this past Monday, Cheney once again claimed links between Iraq and al-Qaida.


Cheney on June 14, 2004: "He was a patron of terrorism. He had long-established ties with a-Qaeda."

The day after Cheney's comments, Bush was questioned at a press conference outside the White House.

White House Press Conference June 15, 2004:
Q: The Vice President, who I see standing over there, said yesterday that Saddam Hussein has long-established ties to al Qaeda. As you know, this is disputed within the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. President, would you add any qualifiers to that flat statement? And what do you think is the best evidence of it?
President Bush: Zarqawi. Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda. He's the person who's still killing. He's the person -- and remember the email exchange between al Qaeda leadership and he, himself, about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom? Saddam Hussein also had ties to terrorist organizations, as well.

Thought i should back up my previous response with some evidence : )

*You REALLY need to listen to something other than Fox News, hif.


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Jun 3 08:00:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I just love a good GT debate.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 3 08:26:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Although no established links between Iraq and 9/11 have ever been proven, the findings of the bipartisan commission come as a direct challenge to one of the Bush administration's main justifications for war.
>
>Over the past two years, Vice President Dick Cheney in particular has aggressively pushed the notion of an Iraq-Al-Qaeda alliance, describing it in dire terms.
>
>
>Cheney on October 10, 2003: "He also has an established relationship with al-Qaeda, providing training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs."
>That was Cheney in October 2003. In January of this year, Cheney said, "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection and that he was "very confident there was an established relationship." As recently as this past Monday, Cheney once again claimed links between Iraq and al-Qaida.
>
>
>Cheney on June 14, 2004: "He was a patron of terrorism. He had long-established ties with a-Qaeda."
>
>The day after Cheney's comments, Bush was questioned at a press conference outside the White House.
>
>White House Press Conference June 15, 2004:
>Q: The Vice President, who I see standing over there, said yesterday that Saddam Hussein has long-established ties to al Qaeda. As you know, this is disputed within the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. President, would you add any qualifiers to that flat statement? And what do you think is the best evidence of it?
>President Bush: Zarqawi. Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda. He's the person who's still killing. He's the person -- and remember the email exchange between al Qaeda leadership and he, himself, about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom? Saddam Hussein also had ties to terrorist organizations, as well.
>
>Thought i should back up my previous response with some evidence : )
>
>*You REALLY need to listen to something other than Fox News, hif.
>
Everything you say is correct.
Where does it implicate Saddam in the events of 9/11 ?
If you pull up all my old posts you will see the same thing. I've posted many times that Saddam was a supporter of Al Quada, but never implicated Saddam in 9/11
When you take the information in your post and say that implicates Saddam for 9/11, that is called spin.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 3 09:30:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Everything you say is correct.
>Where does it implicate Saddam in the events of 9/11 ?

A = B
B = C
therefore
A = C

A: Saddam had close links with Al-Qaeda activities (according to this administration).

B: Al-Qaeda terrorists were behind the 9/11 attack.

C: Therefore Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.


When you nit-pick about this you sound like Clinton telling the world, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" when asked if he had sex with Monika.


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Jun 3 09:40:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Narc!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 3 10:15:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Everything you say is correct.
>>Where does it implicate Saddam in the events of 9/11 ?
>
>A = B
>B = C
>therefore
>A = C
>
>A: Saddam had close links with Al-Qaeda activities (according to this administration).
>
>B: Al-Qaeda terrorists were behind the 9/11 attack.
>
>C: Therefore Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.
>
>
>When you nit-pick about this you sound like Clinton telling the world, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" when asked if he had sex with Monika.
>
Pure spin Addie.
Isn't that a bit like saying that Smith & Wesson is responsible for all crimes committed with their firearms ?


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 3 10:52:07 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Pure spin Addie.
>Isn't that a bit like saying that Smith & Wesson is responsible for all crimes committed with their firearms ?

You mean they aren't?!

: )

nevermind hif...nevermind. I think any points i make on this topic will remain just beyond your grasp.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 3 11:01:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>nevermind hif...nevermind. I think any points i make on this topic will remain just beyond your grasp.
>
elitist arrogant crap.
no offence tho
:-)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 3 11:03:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey Addi,
At least we are in agreement that AI and the UN are crap.



 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 3 11:14:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Hey Addi,
>At least we are in agreement that AI and the UN are crap.

LOL!

I said "noted", friend...not "agreed"

*and I am an arrogant elitist SOB
: )

Hell, it's Friday. There's no being pissed off at friends on Fridays!


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 3 11:23:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  What's wrong with elitist arrogant crap?

Other than the fact that it drives the hillbillies nuts?

Haha

"elite" is in there for a reason.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 3 11:32:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Interesting that you left out Spain, Bali, and Chechnya.

Spain for their support in Iraq (so linked to america).

Bali for the high number of (american) tourists (as far as I know, but I'm not informed enough about that one to really get to the bottom of it)

Chechnya is against the Russian oppression, and has nothing to do with any of this.

>That's a two-way street my friend, I think you will find that Europe has lost it's credibility with most Americans as well.

Because of what. Since it doesn't bow at the snap of America's finger?

>Ah, but America is just that important.

You obviously don't know much about what goes on outside your borders.

>If our economy were to fail, all the industrialized countries of the world would follow suit.

If tomorrow the european or japanese/chinese economy implodes, America will follow just as well. I don't see how this makes America more or less important than any other big trade union.

>Plus we've got kick-ass military.

True. And how much longer do you think America will be able to support it with this kind of spending. Or are the billions growing on trees over there?

>It wouldn't even buy half of Jacques Chirac's wine cellar.

Quotes like that must make you very popular in the social circles you frequent.

If it's true, I'm very happy for Chirac though, but I doubt it.

>Right wing press ?
>Show me some.

Fox.

>Um, the intelligence agencies of Belgium, Germany, France, Russia, England, and the rest of the world were all convinced that Saddam was stockpiling WMD's, so how is it that Dubya was lying about them ?

Even if it was the case (and I'm not saying it is, but you seem to be more informed about the Belgian intelligence services than me), they didn't push for war.

>Bullshit

Yeah, I forgot, you were there too, just like the guy they interviewed.

>Lying about WMD's in Iraq would not benefit Dubya simply because that is only one of may reasons why we are there and a small one at that.

It was "a reason" why Iraq could be attacked. You're saying Bush didn't get anything out of that?


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 3 11:34:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>What's wrong with elitist arrogant crap?

Nothing, as long as you add some seasoning.

and I'm having a tough time concentrating on your posts lately due to your avatar picture. It's very distracting.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 3 11:35:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I feel like licking my avatar all the time, but there's some static on my screen.


Life is so cruel.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 3 12:12:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I feel like licking my avatar all the time, but there's some static on my screen.

lmao!

Shocking!
Yeah..be careful with a wet tongue around electricity. It would be a tragedy if you ended up frying some vital organ at such a young age.



 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Jun 3 13:02:43 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>>The world isn't out to get you, unlike perhaps what the people you vote you want to make you believe, you're not that important, get over it. You act like the whole world wakes up thinking about America and goes to sleep thinking about it.
>>
>Ah, but America is just that important.
>We are the world's leading manufacturer and consumer of the world's commodities.
>If our economy were to fail, all the industrialized countries of the world would follow suit.

I made this point in another discussion, but I'll make it here. Foreign investment is on the decline in America. That is the first sign of a economic power in decline. To have a healthy economy, you need high level of foreign investment. Again, on the decline in America. If America were to collaspe, the world market would take a hit. But Europe would survive as it has a healthy trade union, and a strong currency. Asia would survive as it has a large consumer base and huge amounts of foreign investment {even with the loss of american money}. N/S America would suffer, but with their access to the expanding Asian market, they'd take a hit, but come out of it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 3 13:59:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>
>>>
>>>The world isn't out to get you, unlike perhaps what the people you vote you want to make you believe, you're not that important, get over it. You act like the whole world wakes up thinking about America and goes to sleep thinking about it.
>>>
>>Ah, but America is just that important.
>>We are the world's leading manufacturer and consumer of the world's commodities.
>>If our economy were to fail, all the industrialized countries of the world would follow suit.
>
>I made this point in another discussion, but I'll make it here. Foreign investment is on the decline in America. That is the first sign of a economic power in decline. To have a healthy economy, you need high level of foreign investment. Again, on the decline in America. If America were to collaspe, the world market would take a hit. But Europe would survive as it has a healthy trade union, and a strong currency. Asia would survive as it has a large consumer base and huge amounts of foreign investment {even with the loss of american money}. N/S America would suffer, but with their access to the expanding Asian market, they'd take a hit, but come out of it.
>
Sorry, not buying your bullshit.
Too many respected economists disagree



 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Jun 3 14:52:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So, hif, you are saying that foreign investment is up in America, and that it has a strong ecomomy, not a weakening one?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 3 15:20:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>So, hif, you are saying that foreign investment is up in America, and that it has a strong ecomomy, not a weakening one?
>
I'm saying that our economy is not static. It is always in a state of incline or decline and neither state is continuous.
Foreign investment is the same way. Just because it is now in a downward trend does not mean it will stay that way, nor does it mean there is not enough foreign investment even in decline.
And yes, our economy is strong right now. It is certainly stronger than it was when Clinton left office. And certainly stronger than it was during the mini-recession caused by 9/11.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 3 16:13:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Lol hif.

The American economy is not going strong, but hey, believe what you want, you probably know better. There's no inflation there either, let alone any deficits, right?

And besides, that's not the point.

The point was that you implied that America is the single economic power that keeps the whole system going. It isn't, like Silentmind pointed out.

So no, America isn't as important as you'd like it to be to non-americans.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 3 16:41:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Lol hif.
>
>The American economy is not going strong, but hey, believe what you want, you probably know better. There's no inflation there either, let alone any deficits, right?
>
We don't have the unemployment rate enjoyed by Europe either.
As for the deficit ?
It's a wartime deficit, they happen.
Everybody is working, construction cranes dot the skylines of every major city, how is that a bad economy ?
>And besides, that's not the point.
>
>The point was that you implied that America is the single economic power that keeps the whole system going. It isn't, like Silentmind pointed out.
>
Yes Silentmind is always correct and has the final say on our economic well being.
>
No, I implied that America is the largest economic power. Forgive me if I implied otherwise. As the largest economic power, it would follow that it would create the largest impact if it failed.
>So no, America isn't as important as you'd like it to be to non-americans.
>
I couldn't care less how important it is to non-americans. My problem is with
the religious fanatics that want to kill me and my family.


 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Jun 3 16:57:39 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>I'm saying that our economy is not static. It is always in a state of incline or decline and neither state is continuous.
>Foreign investment is the same way. Just because it is now in a downward trend does not mean it will stay that way, nor does it mean there is not enough foreign investment even in decline.
>And yes, our economy is strong right now. It is certainly stronger than it was when Clinton left office. And certainly stronger than it was during the mini-recession caused by 9/11.

It has been on the decline for quite a few years now. General trend is downwards. The economy is not strong. The huge deficit and inflation, as Christophe said, show that. War-time or not, huge deficits like that pile up. And seeing as the American's will be in Iraq for the next long while...


 
Silentmind Posted: Fri Jun 3 17:00:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh, and another thing. Yes, if the American economy magically vanished a huge hit would be taken. But it is taking a steady decline. Other economies become stronger, picking up the slack left by the Americans.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jun 3 17:58:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Yes Silentmind is always correct and has the final say on our economic well being.

Perhaps not, but he appears to know what he's talking about.

As for the good employment rates, that's what happens when you have high inflation.

The low inflation in Europe is also a major cause of the unemployment rate.

If interested, look up the Phillips-curve, (though simplified) it gives a good understandable demonstration of the relation between inflation and employment.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 3 19:34:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Yes Silentmind is always correct and has the final say on our economic well being.
>
>Perhaps not, but he appears to know what he's talking about.
>
No, it's because you agree with him.
>As for the good employment rates, that's what happens when you have high inflation.
>
That's also what happens when you have a strengthening economy.
>The low inflation in Europe is also a major cause of the unemployment rate.
>
Could you just oversimplify a little more ? There are so many causes for these things. I don't give a shit what the economists say. They can theorize all they want, but in the end they all line on differents sides and call the other side idiots. No one can predict what the economies will do.
I can tell you this much. I stood in unemployment lines so long, the building would not hold everybody, so the lines went outside and completely wrapped around the building.
I took a job that paid three dollars an hour to feed my family. Of course we had a healthy deficit and that was good, right ? Half the country was not working, but we sure as fuck had a healthy deficit.
I know a little something about what a bad economy is like. I would venture to say that 95% of GT'ers have no idea what a bad economy is like other than the theory you are learning in school right now. Most of you have only experienced prosperous times.
Spout all the theory you want, but look at where the economy was in 1980, then in 2000, then where it is now and explain to me how we are in a steady decline. Even with half the country on unemployment, we are still the strongest economy on the planet.



 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]