US 'erodes' global human rights

[Jingus 0]

I don't see why the prisoners might lie about it

You don't see why convicted criminals might lie about the people keeping them imprisoned?

 

Hooray for Graner's conviction though, as it seemed that he was one sick fuck.

[Justice 0]

Why the fuck does everyone assume that every conservative approved of Abu Ghraib? I know I don't consider it torture, but it's humiliation and downright wrong nonetheless. Of course, overall I'd say still say we are better than most other countries. Hell, wasn't it the Belgian UN Soldiers that started a prostitution ring down in Congo, among other things? I mean, that's BELGIUM, for Pete's sake.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why the fuck does everyone assume that every conservative approved of Abu Ghraib? I know I don't consider it torture, but it's humiliation and downright wrong nonetheless.

For the same reason so many hawks think mainstream Arabs approve of Al Qaeda. Because you guys basically didn't make enough noise and let the extremists be viewed as the "norm."

 

Some of us know better.

[Justice 0]

Why the fuck does everyone assume that every conservative approved of Abu Ghraib? I know I don't consider it torture, but it's humiliation and downright wrong nonetheless.

For the same reason so many hawks think mainstream Arabs approve of Al Qaeda. Because you guys basically didn't make enough noise and let the extremists be viewed as the "norm."

 

Some of us know better.

Well, it depends on what you mean by 'making noise'. I didn't immediately damn Bush for this, yes, nor did I immediately reprimand the military or stuff like that. Like most conservatives, I wanted these people to be brought to justice. I'd rather make less commotion but do it in a better way than make a ton of it in all the wrong ways.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Because most people didn't go "Oh that's wrong these people should be locked up" they went "Well it's not torture, at least we're not as bad as *insert European country here*". When you don't attack, but rather defend it in a roundabout way, people will assume things, whether true or not. Just like how just because all Arabs don't go and say "Al Queda is BAD~!" we automatically assume that they don't necessarily believe that.

 

It's bad logic, but it's not like Conservatives are the only ones that suffer.

 

To Jingus: I meant that when you have pictures of weird shit going on, I'm not sure I'm gonna believe that all the soldiers did was get them naked and put hoods on, and no more. When prisoners tell family members about being sodomized and such, and people tell stories of having guns pointed at private parts while being stripped naked, to believe that worse shit had happened is not that far of a stretch.

 

Question for all: Do you honestly believe that every person in that Abu Gharib prison deserves to be in there?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Question for all: Do you honestly believe that every person in that Abu Gharib prison deserves to be in there?

Honestly, I don't know if it's meant to hold just terrorists, or if a pick-pocket, or someone caught stealing gas are imprisoned there as well.

[Jingus 0]

I was under the impression that it was a prison for Iraqi civilians who'd committed crimes, that just happened to be staffed by US military personel (probably because the only experienced jailors in Iraq were all Saddam's henchmen).

[Vern Gagne 0]

Ok. Let me ask this, what kind of crimes are the men in the pictures accused of doing? Is it petty crimes, or did these guys attack and kill U.S. troops?

[Justice 0]

Ok. Let me ask this, what kind of crimes are the men in the pictures accused of doing? Is it petty crimes, or did these guys attack and kill U.S. troops?

Well, to be honest, does it truly matter? Think about this for a second: While they are stupid, Baathist fucks for killing our troops, we need to maintain a certain level of dignity. While I might not mind the humiliation, I understand that, on simple principle, it's wrong. We can't do it, because it's just not who we are. I'm all for locking them up, even executing them on site (As in, at the premises), but to do stupid, frat-boy shit like this is not the right way to handle it. :\

 

And yes, I am very, very inebriated. It's Mad Dog Friday, and I unknowingly agreed to this hell on Earth. May God forgive me.

[Justice 0]

Because most people didn't go "Oh that's wrong these people should be locked up" they went "Well it's not torture, at least we're not as bad as *insert European country here*". When you don't attack, but rather defend it in a roundabout way, people will assume things, whether true or not. Just like how just because all Arabs don't go and say "Al Queda is BAD~!" we automatically assume that they don't necessarily believe that.

Oh please, we are not all extreme conservative blowhards like Mike or Rush. You are just taking a misconception and using it as justification for a unjust view. Seriously, few conservatives I know approve of this, and I talk with a great range of extremes. The problem is, they find themselves asailed from all sides by people like C-Bacon who consider this standard practice among the US Military forces and hide behind a false cloak of 'international dignity' or some such false ideal. That's the only time I've EVER heard anyone I know use the Euro Nation defense.

 

It's just the same as the "There were no WMDs defense": For all intents and purposes, the most intelligence gathered in Iraq was for the WMD argument, with info coming from the UN and other foreign intelligence agencies. NoCal can say "These arguments were around before!" but in all honesty, even Hans Blix only conceded it after the invasion. Sure, there was Joe Wilson, but the Senate says that Wilson was wrong and Bush was right in that case, even. Seriously, little argument was brought that he had no weapons until months after the invasion. Up until then, it was how to deal with the weapons that were there, not if they were there to begin with.

 

Oh boy, am I drunk tonight.

[cbacon 0]

Why the fuck does everyone assume that every conservative approved of Abu Ghraib?

 

Not everyone does. Just a select few that run your countries foreign policy (EDIT: that dosent make sense, ignore) I respect your opinoins, but i'm baffled how you can't find any fault on your current administrations stance on the supposed 'war on terror' which initselft is a farce to appease US foreign policty/corperations/dumb americans.

 

But yeah, don't get me wrong, i don't condone the actions taken by islamic fundamentalists (which were left in power post-soviet invasion, but whose counting?) , which are just as big of a cancer as the neoconcervatives in the white house. But saying "oh well, they behead our soldiers" dosent excuse anything. Human rights violations are human rights violations all the same, and im sure you;ll agree that the infringing on these rights are unjustifialbe all the same, as are racial profriling

 

And yes, like you , i am am also intoxicated and will be able to formulte a more articulate a more coherent argument when sober............

[Justice 0]

Not everyone does. Just a select few that run your countries foreign policy. I respect your opinoins, but i'm baffled how you can't find any fault on your current administrations stance on the supposed 'war on terror' which initselft is a farce to appease US foreign policty/corperations/dumb americans.

Well, we do agree on something: This is inherently wrong. So that's all good.

 

I don't believe that the higher-ups exactly approve of all this, though. It'd be hard for me to believe, just on the PR level alone. This was bound to get out, so why would they approve? I mean, I don't mind it, but I understand it's wrong and we can't do it. If they are like that, fair enough. But I don't think they've explicitly approved of any of this sort of behavior, otherwise why would they bring these soldier up on such charges?

 

But yeah, don't get me wrong, i don't condone the actions taken by islamic fundamentalists, which are just as big of a cancer as the neoconcervatives in the white house. But saying "oh well, they behead our soldiers" dosent excuse anything. Human rights violations are human rights violations all the same, and im sure you;ll agree that the infringing on these rights are unjustifialbe all the same, as are racial profriling

 

Yeah, I understand. This board makes everyone seem more extreme than they really are. Of course, I don't see Bush as being as bad as you think, but whatever. To say, though, we are 'eroding' global human rights is a bit too much to say. It's that talk that gets us to use the arguments that YPoV talks about, which continues this horrid misconception of us. :\

 

I won't talk of racial profiling, except that neither side (From a Law Major's point of view) has shown enough proof that it actually occurs or that it is right or wrong. There are no solid statistics to show any of it is really there, it's just pundits speaking out of their asses.

 

And yes, like you , i am am also intoxicated and will be able to formulte a more articulate a more coherent argument when sober............

 

We should drink together. I'm just across the damn river from you anyways. I'm sure we'd like each other better if we did...

[cbacon 0]

I don't believe that the higher-ups exactly approve of all this, though. It'd be hard for me to believe, just on the PR level alone.

 

Well, maybe, but specific incidients such as using taboo subjects in regards to Islamic law such as forced homosexal acts that were outlined by the 'higher up's' in Washington. These are outlined in Seymour Hersh's "Chain of Command" book, if you get a chance to look at (first chapter). Hersh of course was one of the first journalists whom reported the My Lai atrocities in Vietnam, and has merely acted as an imparial observer in US foriegn policiy. For these reasons alone, Rummy should be removed given the strict use of force that infringes on human rights.

 

To say, though, we are 'eroding' global human rights is a bit too much to say

 

In relations to atrocities commited by nations past and present, then yes, you'd be right. But for a nation that claims that they're liberating a country from opression, yet at the same time imposes the same measures as the dictatorship that it helped to create, and while dealing with dictators that infringe on on human rights, dosent that seem a tad contradictory? Do you really believe that your current administration has the citizens of Iraq as the fiirst issuse on thier mind?

 

Better yet, do you really believe that by invading Iraq that your country is more secure without Saddam in power? If anything, you've created thousands of more martyrs and islamic fundamentalists. But after all, the US needs a phanton enemy , as it did i the Cold War to propagate such a fear within the common citizen.

 

*falls face first onto keyboard*

 

We should drink together. I'm just across the damn river from you anyways. I'm sure we'd like each other better if we did...

 

Ah yes, as long as at least every other drink is Canadian brewed, one of our few claims to fame in regards to our southern neighbours

[Austin3164life 0]

But we gotta spread democracy to those damn Arabs. We gotta turn them Christian. We can't let them be aggressive toward our Jewish buddies. We'll give the Israelis nukes and make sure they won't get touched.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Ok. Let me ask this, what kind of crimes are the men in the pictures accused of doing? Is it petty crimes, or did these guys attack and kill U.S. troops?

Well, to be honest, does it truly matter? Think about this for a second: While they are stupid, Baathist fucks for killing our troops, we need to maintain a certain level of dignity. While I might not mind the humiliation, I understand that, on simple principle, it's wrong. We can't do it, because it's just not who we are. I'm all for locking them up, even executing them on site (As in, at the premises), but to do stupid, frat-boy shit like this is not the right way to handle it. :\

 

And yes, I am very, very inebriated. It's Mad Dog Friday, and I unknowingly agreed to this hell on Earth. May God forgive me.

No. More understandable of why they would do this to a terrorist though.

[cbacon 0]

Ok. Let me ask this, what kind of crimes are the men in the pictures accused of doing? Is it petty crimes, or did these guys attack and kill U.S. troops?

Well, to be honest, does it truly matter? Think about this for a second: While they are stupid, Baathist fucks for killing our troops, we need to maintain a certain level of dignity. While I might not mind the humiliation, I understand that, on simple principle, it's wrong. We can't do it, because it's just not who we are. I'm all for locking them up, even executing them on site (As in, at the premises), but to do stupid, frat-boy shit like this is not the right way to handle it. :\

 

And yes, I am very, very inebriated. It's Mad Dog Friday, and I unknowingly agreed to this hell on Earth. May God forgive me.

No. More understandable of why they would do this to a terrorist though.

But it's not just 'lets humiliate a terrorist' than more of a 'lets break down the will of random muslims we hold in detention arbitraily "

[Vern Gagne 0]

Is that paramount to torture, or is it unnecessary humiliation?

[Jingus 0]

But it's not just 'lets humiliate a terrorist' than more of a 'lets break down the will of random muslims we hold in detention arbitraily "

But by all accounts, nobody but the actual prison guards themselves are guilty of this stuff. Their superiors certainly didn't order them to take naked pictures of the prisoners. And the ringleader of the whole group was just found guilty on 9 out of 10 charges, and will be sentenced soon. How can one lay the blame for this isolated incident on the head of the Commander in Chief?

[Guest MikeSC]

Why the fuck does everyone assume that every conservative approved of Abu Ghraib?

Why the fuck does everyone assume that every conservative approved of Abu Ghraib?

Not everyone does. Just a select few that run your countries foreign policy (EDIT: that dosent make sense, ignore) I respect your opinoins, but i'm baffled how you can't find any fault on your current administrations stance on the supposed 'war on terror' which initselft is a farce to appease US foreign policty/corperations/dumb americans.

 

But yeah, don't get me wrong, i don't condone the actions taken by islamic fundamentalists (which were left in power post-soviet invasion, but whose counting?) , which are just as big of a cancer as the neoconcervatives in the white house.

I can see that. Seeking to use the military to eliminate terrorist threats before they attack us is about the same thing as beheading people and randomly killing people. I mean, hell, yeah, the other side tends to kidnap and then brutally murder their prisoners --- but, let me guess, because they're Arabs, you can't expect any better, right?

 

Jesus, do you actually read what you write, or do you simply tune out?

But saying "oh well, they behead our soldiers" dosent excuse anything.

No, it's called maintaining a bit of perspective.

 

In World War II, I'm sure we might have served the Japanese POW's food that was less than succulent --- when you compare it to what the Japanese did to OUR POW's, it's a little hard to refer to the treatments as being even remotely comparable.

 

Well, unless you're an idiot.

Human rights violations are human rights violations all the same, and im sure you;ll agree that the infringing on these rights are unjustifialbe all the same, as are racial profriling

Are you SERIOUSLY comparing racial profiling to BEHEADING PEOPLE?

 

Gee, can't figure out why the left isn't taken seriously. It truly is lost on me.

 

Racial profiling, like it or not, is simply maximizing security efforts by targeting it on people who MIGHT actually be a problem.

 

If you have a serial killer, you'll look at men more than women, given the ratio of male to female serial killers. That is profiling --- and it's also BASIC FUCKING LOGIC.

And yes, like you , i am am also intoxicated and will be able to formulte a more articulate a more coherent argument when sober............

Given your history --- nah, you probably won't.

Well, to be honest, does it truly matter? Think about this for a second: While they are stupid, Baathist fucks for killing our troops, we need to maintain a certain level of dignity.

Somebody's religious "rights" versus the safety of thousands of people who are targeted by an attack plan that they know of and won't reveal.

 

Sorry, not quite the same thing.

 

Let's say we captured OBL back in early September 2001. Would you OPPOSE using whatever means necessary to extract the 9/11 plot info out of him?

 

I'm also more than mildly stunned that you had no problem with Bacon referring to Islamofascism as being as big a cancer as the neocons in the White House. There is a fine line between attempting to look moderate and being a bleeding idiot.

In relations to atrocities commited by nations past and present, then yes, you'd be right. But for a nation that claims that they're liberating a country from opression, yet at the same time imposes the same measures as the dictatorship that it helped to create, and while dealing with dictators that infringe on on human rights, dosent that seem a tad contradictory?

As a favor ro yourself, cease referring to Iraq in the future. You are comically misinformed.

 

Do you REALLY want to compare treatment of Iraqis under Saddam and under the US?

Better yet, do you really believe that by invading Iraq that your country is more secure without Saddam in power? If anything, you've created thousands of more martyrs and islamic fundamentalists. But after all, the US needs a phanton enemy , as it did i the Cold War to propagate such a fear within the common citizen.

Feel free to sit back and take all of the dividends from the work, sweat, and blood the troops shed. The world has done so for many years now.

But we gotta spread democracy to those damn Arabs. We gotta turn them Christian. We can't let them be aggressive toward our Jewish buddies. We'll give the Israelis nukes and make sure they won't get touched.

Wow, spreading democracy is bad now?

 

Do you recognize how utterly insane a notion that is?

 

Nah, I s'pose not.

 

And, if you REALLY want to get on to the Israel/Palestine issue, feel free to take the side of the subhuman monkeys. You'll be wrong --- but it won't be a first time. And it assuredly won't be the last.

But it's not just 'lets humiliate a terrorist' than more of a 'lets break down the will of random muslims we hold in detention arbitraily "

Actually, it's called getting info. You know, the thing people bitched that Bush didn't do before 9/11.

 

To the left, nothing is good enough. Bush tries to get info and he is villified. He doesn't, and he is villified.

 

Oh well, it's easier to carp on the sidelines than to actually do anything.

. Ironic, considering they didn't need much evidence to believe that there were WMD's in Iraq LOL2004~!

Considering that everybody said that they had them, that we know he used them and have no idea what he did with them --- no, it's not an absurd stretch of logic to assume he still had them.

 

Oh, and smitty, mentioning that HRW won a Peace Prize in 1997 is irrelevant. Yassir Arafat won a Peace Prize. Winning one makes one MORE morally questionable, not less.

Well, I think it's kind of upsetting that we're holding guys who may not have even done anything, and that even guys that have done something aren't being charged and put through the system already.

And several who were freed returned to the Middle East --- to fight us. Funny how that doesn't get mentioned.

 

It's illogical to free POW's BEFORE a war is finished. It's, at the bare minimum, a self-defeating act.

I wouldn't ever be bold enough to say America is the leaing threat to human rights, but I would also at the same time say that a lot of our policies in general promote indirect violations of human rights abroad, that your average citizen is never going to be akin to as far as just by watching the evening news. A lot of our labor trade laws and relationships with countries that have no such laws create a lot of human rights violations.

You're right.

 

Hell, we're still a part of the UN and THEIR record on human rights is comically bad.

There's nothing wrong with detaining suspects as long as they are not tortured, their religious beliefs are respected, they are actually charged with something and are allowed contact with a lawyer as well as family.

In what alternate universe are prisoners supposed to be given US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? More than a few countries don't offer legal counsel to their own prisoners --- you think they offer it to POW's?

 

There is no right to a lawyer. Sorry to break it to you. And there is no right to have your religious beliefs respected. And the "torture" is child's play compared to the REAL torture that occurs.

The US has an appalling human rights record as of late, with the abuse at the Iraqi and Afghanistan prisons and of course the debacle which is Gitmo.

Well, could be worse --- we could run pedophilia sex rings like the UN.

They need to take steps to rectify this ASAP, though to many the damage has already been done. They can't take the morale high ground anymore, that's for sure.

Um, yes, we can easily take the moral high ground.

 

Honest question time: You have a choice of being caught by the US or by the "insurgents".

 

Who would you wish to be captured by?

Does bring up an interesting question.

Do we allow special privileges to those who convert to Muslim in regular general popular American prison?

 

If we do, then yes we should give these detainees the same rights. If not, then no.

 

They should not receive any more or any less rights than those we have in our prisons in the US.

Why should they be given similar rights?

 

American prisoners tend to have American citizens --- which means they have Constitutional protections. POW's have NO claim to ANY Constitutional protections.

 

Lord, folks, this is rather simple.

-=Mike

...And, to give you a side-by-side comparison --- here is American "torture" v REAL torture --- not even close to work-safe, but real torture tends to not be...

[Ted the Poster 0]

Mike is like the Mick Foley of CE.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Mike is like the Mick Foley of CE.

Mike is the Hulk Hogan of CE.

 

He claims to be done, comes back long enough to go over everybody on the roster, and then leaves again.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Because most people didn't go "Oh that's wrong these people should be locked up" they went "Well it's not torture, at least we're not as bad as *insert European country here*". When you don't attack, but rather defend it in a roundabout way, people will assume things, whether true or not. Just like how just because all Arabs don't go and say "Al Queda is BAD~!" we automatically assume that they don't necessarily believe that.

Oh please, we are not all extreme conservative blowhards like Mike or Rush. You are just taking a misconception and using it as justification for a unjust view. Seriously, few conservatives I know approve of this, and I talk with a great range of extremes. The problem is, they find themselves asailed from all sides by people like C-Bacon who consider this standard practice among the US Military forces and hide behind a false cloak of 'international dignity' or some such false ideal. That's the only time I've EVER heard anyone I know use the Euro Nation defense.

 

It's just the same as the "There were no WMDs defense": For all intents and purposes, the most intelligence gathered in Iraq was for the WMD argument, with info coming from the UN and other foreign intelligence agencies. NoCal can say "These arguments were around before!" but in all honesty, even Hans Blix only conceded it after the invasion. Sure, there was Joe Wilson, but the Senate says that Wilson was wrong and Bush was right in that case, even. Seriously, little argument was brought that he had no weapons until months after the invasion. Up until then, it was how to deal with the weapons that were there, not if they were there to begin with.

 

Oh boy, am I drunk tonight.

I never said I felt that way, but many people use the logic of "if you're not with us, then you must be against us." It's like unless you state otherwise, we automatically assume you're wearing the same stripes as those "in your camp"(blowhard conservatives still being conservative, Islamic fundamentalists being Arabic, etc.). GWB stated that at one point, and the problem is that's a very limited viewpoint on a much broader problem. Just because someone doesn't approve of the "War on Terror" doesn't mean that they approve of the Sept. 11 attacks. It's stupid and I would not be surprised if he was heavily criticized for it (I wouldn't know, I don't really remember the reactions).

 

To clarify: I don't think that conservatives actually condone the Abu Gharaib "torture" (whatever you want to call it). It's ironic that this is the exact point that I was trying to make earlier, that just because I didn't make a clear statement that I didn't follow this stupid line of thinking, Justice automatically assumed that I did follow it and that I felt that conservatives loved torture.

 

I would say I'm pretty conservative myself, but seeing as how most of the politics on the board revolve around the Iraq War, I probably come off as pretty liberal, seeing as how I don't really feel it to be justified, in addition to the fact that I'm pissed at the lying and false information used to go for it.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

If we could only get the people bitching about the "US atrocities" to look at a few terrorist groups in Iraq that mostly behead innocent people, we'd be allright.

 

Funny how everyone overlooks that beheading thing..

[cbacon 0]

Why the fuck does everyone assume that every conservative approved of Abu Ghraib?

Why the fuck does everyone assume that every conservative approved of Abu Ghraib?

Not everyone does. Just a select few that run your countries foreign policy (EDIT: that dosent make sense, ignore) I respect your opinoins, but i'm baffled how you can't find any fault on your current administrations stance on the supposed 'war on terror' which initselft is a farce to appease US foreign policty/corperations/dumb americans.

 

But yeah, don't get me wrong, i don't condone the actions taken by islamic fundamentalists (which were left in power post-soviet invasion, but whose counting?) , which are just as big of a cancer as the neoconcervatives in the white house.

I can see that. Seeking to use the military to eliminate terrorist threats before they attack us is about the same thing as beheading people and randomly killing people. I mean, hell, yeah, the other side tends to kidnap and then brutally murder their prisoners --- but, let me guess, because they're Arabs, you can't expect any better, right?

 

Jesus, do you actually read what you write, or do you simply tune out?

But saying "oh well, they behead our soldiers" dosent excuse anything.

No, it's called maintaining a bit of perspective.

 

In World War II, I'm sure we might have served the Japanese POW's food that was less than succulent --- when you compare it to what the Japanese did to OUR POW's, it's a little hard to refer to the treatments as being even remotely comparable.

 

Well, unless you're an idiot.

Human rights violations are human rights violations all the same, and im sure you;ll agree that the infringing on these rights are unjustifialbe all the same, as are racial profriling

Are you SERIOUSLY comparing racial profiling to BEHEADING PEOPLE?

 

Gee, can't figure out why the left isn't taken seriously. It truly is lost on me.

 

Racial profiling, like it or not, is simply maximizing security efforts by targeting it on people who MIGHT actually be a problem.

 

If you have a serial killer, you'll look at men more than women, given the ratio of male to female serial killers. That is profiling --- and it's also BASIC FUCKING LOGIC.

And yes, like you , i am am also intoxicated and will be able to formulte a more articulate a more coherent argument when sober............

Given your history --- nah, you probably won't.

Well, to be honest, does it truly matter? Think about this for a second: While they are stupid, Baathist fucks for killing our troops, we need to maintain a certain level of dignity.

Somebody's religious "rights" versus the safety of thousands of people who are targeted by an attack plan that they know of and won't reveal.

 

Sorry, not quite the same thing.

 

Let's say we captured OBL back in early September 2001. Would you OPPOSE using whatever means necessary to extract the 9/11 plot info out of him?

 

I'm also more than mildly stunned that you had no problem with Bacon referring to Islamofascism as being as big a cancer as the neocons in the White House. There is a fine line between attempting to look moderate and being a bleeding idiot.

In relations to atrocities commited by nations past and present, then yes, you'd be right. But for a nation that claims that they're liberating a country from opression, yet at the same time imposes the same measures as the dictatorship that it helped to create, and while dealing with dictators that infringe on on human rights, dosent that seem a tad contradictory?

As a favor ro yourself, cease referring to Iraq in the future. You are comically misinformed.

 

Do you REALLY want to compare treatment of Iraqis under Saddam and under the US?

Better yet, do you really believe that by invading Iraq that your country is more secure without Saddam in power? If anything, you've created thousands of more martyrs and islamic fundamentalists. But after all, the US needs a phanton enemy , as it did i the Cold War to propagate such a fear within the common citizen.

Feel free to sit back and take all of the dividends from the work, sweat, and blood the troops shed. The world has done so for many years now.

But we gotta spread democracy to those damn Arabs. We gotta turn them Christian. We can't let them be aggressive toward our Jewish buddies. We'll give the Israelis nukes and make sure they won't get touched.

Wow, spreading democracy is bad now?

 

Do you recognize how utterly insane a notion that is?

 

Nah, I s'pose not.

 

And, if you REALLY want to get on to the Israel/Palestine issue, feel free to take the side of the subhuman monkeys. You'll be wrong --- but it won't be a first time. And it assuredly won't be the last.

But it's not just 'lets humiliate a terrorist' than more of a 'lets break down the will of random muslims we hold in detention arbitraily "

Actually, it's called getting info. You know, the thing people bitched that Bush didn't do before 9/11.

 

To the left, nothing is good enough. Bush tries to get info and he is villified. He doesn't, and he is villified.

 

Oh well, it's easier to carp on the sidelines than to actually do anything.

. Ironic, considering they didn't need much evidence to believe that there were WMD's in Iraq LOL2004~!

Considering that everybody said that they had them, that we know he used them and have no idea what he did with them --- no, it's not an absurd stretch of logic to assume he still had them.

 

Oh, and smitty, mentioning that HRW won a Peace Prize in 1997 is irrelevant. Yassir Arafat won a Peace Prize. Winning one makes one MORE morally questionable, not less.

Well, I think it's kind of upsetting that we're holding guys who may not have even done anything, and that even guys that have done something aren't being charged and put through the system already.

And several who were freed returned to the Middle East --- to fight us. Funny how that doesn't get mentioned.

 

It's illogical to free POW's BEFORE a war is finished. It's, at the bare minimum, a self-defeating act.

I wouldn't ever be bold enough to say America is the leaing threat to human rights, but I would also at the same time say that a lot of our policies in general promote indirect violations of human rights abroad, that your average citizen is never going to be akin to as far as just by watching the evening news. A lot of our labor trade laws and relationships with countries that have no such laws create a lot of human rights violations.

You're right.

 

Hell, we're still a part of the UN and THEIR record on human rights is comically bad.

There's nothing wrong with detaining suspects as long as they are not tortured, their religious beliefs are respected, they are actually charged with something and are allowed contact with a lawyer as well as family.

In what alternate universe are prisoners supposed to be given US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? More than a few countries don't offer legal counsel to their own prisoners --- you think they offer it to POW's?

 

There is no right to a lawyer. Sorry to break it to you. And there is no right to have your religious beliefs respected. And the "torture" is child's play compared to the REAL torture that occurs.

The US has an appalling human rights record as of late, with the abuse at the Iraqi and Afghanistan prisons and of course the debacle which is Gitmo.

Well, could be worse --- we could run pedophilia sex rings like the UN.

They need to take steps to rectify this ASAP, though to many the damage has already been done. They can't take the morale high ground anymore, that's for sure.

Um, yes, we can easily take the moral high ground.

 

Honest question time: You have a choice of being caught by the US or by the "insurgents".

 

Who would you wish to be captured by?

Does bring up an interesting question.

Do we allow special privileges to those who convert to Muslim in regular general popular American prison?

 

If we do, then yes we should give these detainees the same rights. If not, then no.

 

They should not receive any more or any less rights than those we have in our prisons in the US.

Why should they be given similar rights?

 

American prisoners tend to have American citizens --- which means they have Constitutional protections. POW's have NO claim to ANY Constitutional protections.

 

Lord, folks, this is rather simple.

-=Mike

I can see that. Seeking to use the military to eliminate terrorist threats before they attack us is about the same thing as beheading people and randomly killing people. I mean, hell, yeah, the other side tends to kidnap and then brutally murder their prisoners --- but, let me guess, because they're Arabs, you can't expect any better, right?

 

Jesus, do you actually read what you write, or do you simply tune out?

QUOTE

 

HAHAHHA welcome back. Apparently your still incapable of seeing the obvious in the current geopolitical structure. Islam fundmantalists behead American soldiers, therefore whatever we (you) do is kosher in the name of fighting a phatom enemy used to exploit the atrocities of 9/11. Such a depressing state of affairs really.

 

And really, if your the lesser of two, or several evils, then it's all good right? It would be evident that that sort of thinking helps to guide the ever contradictory thought process of blind Bush apologists

 

QUOTE Jesus, do you actually read what you write, or do you simply tune out? QUOTE

 

Pot, kettle, black, yada yada

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I should be able to change that punk mother fuckers name and stuff.

 

 

CANADIAN VIOLENCE, BIOTCH!

 

EDIT: drunken post

[cbacon 0]

que?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You got SC'd...