As someone who was against the war...

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » April 10, 2003, 7:12 pm

kyoukan wrote:I wasn't talking to you cartalas you fucking tard. I already know you aren't smart enough to do anything but parrot whatever the government wants you to think.

Speak when you are spoken too.

SHUT UP STOOPID POOPY PANTS DOOKIE HEAD DUMMY FACE MY DADDY WILL BEAT YOUR DADDY UP AND YOUR FAMILY IS POOR!!1!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 10, 2003, 7:21 pm

Shaerra wrote:SHUT UP STOOPID POOPY PANTS DOOKIE HEAD DUMMY FACE MY DADDY WILL BEAT YOUR DADDY UP AND YOUR FAMILY IS POOR!!1!

irony being that is actually the cleverest thing you've ever posted.

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » April 10, 2003, 7:45 pm

A poem:

I'm rubber,
you're glue,
whatever you say bounces off of me,
and sticks to you.

Fin

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 10, 2003, 8:04 pm

kyoukan wrote:I wasn't talking to you cartalas you fucking tard. I already know you aren't smart enough to do anything but parrot whatever the government wants you to think.

Speak when you are spoken too.

ThunderCunt

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 10, 2003, 9:43 pm

To clarify: the issue I was trying to raise in my post wasn't whether or not the detainees are being treated properly (in terms of whether or not they're being tortured, whether they're being fed, etc). The issue is whether or not it is legal, or even justifiable, to detain them indefinitely without even formally accusing them of anything. The issue is that people like Chidoro think it's okay to take away people's rights because Sept. 11 made him cry. Sorry to tell you this, chief, but just because people do horrible things doesn't mean anyone has the right to take away their fundamental rights. That's part of what it means to be an American, a point that is obviously lost on you.

Guru, I'm sorry you didn't like my analogy, but my point still stands. People on this board are totally fine with the US depriving others of justice, but when the same thing happens to US citizens, these same posters will be the first people to bitch about it.

Part of being the most powerful country in the world is that other countries follow your lead. Do you really want the US to say it's okay to detain people indefinitely because they might be in some way linked to someone who was linked to a terrorist act?

Chidoro, stop getting so indignant and spewing bullshit about defending "vermin," blah blah blah. The US gov't doesn't have proof that all of the people being detained in Cuba played a role in Sept. 11, so why are you so convinced?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 10, 2003, 10:22 pm

Etasi wrote: ...to detain them indefinitely without even formally accusing them of anything.

Ummmm, I wonder if the victims of 9/11 would have an issue with the year or so the detainees have spent in Cuba? Let's see how this stacks up... ummm... Eternity on one side... 1 year on the other...

Needless to say, my heart doesn't bleed for the detainees.

Patience grasshopper! Give the system a chance to work. Even John Ashcroft isn't going to leave these guys sit there forever.

But! Just so you know my position, they can ROT there for all I care. These people were actively opposing US Troops in Raghead Wonderland. I have no sympathy for them and less time. You take a stand, you live or die by it. They had poor decision-making processes... much like Kooky.

Last post for me on this dead subject.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » April 10, 2003, 11:00 pm

i dunno how much sense this is gonna make...

... but lets just say that GEN Franks decides it would be a great idea to fly a CH-47 Chinook full of explosives into a building in France. he gets a platoon sized element together and they execute the mission, destroying the building and killing many innocent people.

after the incident, France grows some kiwis and invades the US and captures thousands of US army soldiers. they are detained on a remote island for questioning.

now, only GEN Franks and the platoon sized element had anything to do with this.

is it fair to detain all US army soldiers?

is it fair to detain all members of Al Qaeda? (i think i'm still misspelling that damn word)

imo, once the people are questioned and found to be innocent of any crimes they should be released. on the other hand, i have no idea wtf is taking place in Cuba, i'm not there. so who am i to say that it should only take X amount of time to question X amount of people.

just some shit that was bouncing around in my head.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 11, 2003, 12:43 pm

Etasi wrote: The issue is that people like Chidoro think it's okay to take away people's rights because Sept. 11 made him cry. Sorry to tell you this, chief, but just because people do horrible things doesn't mean anyone has the right to take away their fundamental rights. That's part of what it means to be an American, a point that is obviously lost on you.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to Mr. Toughguy here, ohh wait, you're just thousands of miles away and never in any jeapordy of terrorist activity, my bad. Another ignorant individual that doesn't have his/her personal security in question on a daily basis. Another person that just decided that people rounded up in Afganistan during combat with Al Qaeda forces (a terrorist group, not a country or army) deserve to be treated better than the vermin they are. The dead would spit on you if they could

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 11, 2003, 1:24 pm

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to Mr. Toughguy here, ohh wait, you're just thousands of miles away and never in any jeapordy of terrorist activity, my bad

How the fuck do you know? Terrorists can strike anywhere - that's their MO. Any westerner is a target.

Another ignorant individual that doesn't have his/her personal security in question on a daily basis

Again, how the fuck do you know? Or are only those affected directly by 9/11 in further danger of terrorist harm?

Another person that just decided that people rounded up in Afganistan during combat with Al Qaeda forces (a terrorist group, not a country or army) deserve to be treated better than the vermin they are

Notwithstanding the dubious generalizations here, nobody here argued for any soft treatment. We want them treated EXACTLY like the vermin they are, just as soon as the exact amount of verminousness is ascertained. A healthy concern about collective punishment and possible mistreatment of prisoners, especially when emotions run high, is nothing to be ashamed of or derided.

The dead would spit on you if they could

Get some fuckin help dude.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » April 11, 2003, 1:38 pm

Tanc-what Chidoro is saying about terrorist threats is this.

NY, Chicago and LA are prime targets. I feel ZERO threat where I live. I know for a FACT, terrorist plots will not be a possibility where I live. Chid is trying to convey that to the above poster (I dont know where that person lives). Ramble, ramble, ramble~

Algrinon Stormbringer · April 11, 2003, 9:16 pm

Currently holding 600 detainees from 42 countries and denying them POW status and therefor not allowing them POW rights as stated under the geneva convention.

Pherr, I love you like a play cousin but this is wrong. They do not fall under the Geneva Convention. Look at The Geneva Convention Artticle Number 4 Plz:

Article 4

A. 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:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

If You notice you have to openly carry arms and also have to be easily recognizable at a distance. My questions are these:

Did these 600 terrorists carry weapons openly? NAY

Are these 600 terrorists easily reckognizable at a distance? NAY (Well maybe if you profile but then you piss off all the libs)

Do these terrorists follow the rules of war? This is about the most stupid fucking thing in the entire Geneva convention. Yeah, I am a Officer in the best armed forces in the world, and there are no rules. But since its in there, you cannot resort to certain types of attacks, which these bastards did. Lock em up, and throw away the key, and let them rot like dogs.

JMHO
Alg

PS /HUGS Pherr