Drop the house on her, Ben!

[STrRedWolf]

Archae45, I just got a complaint about you... and I had to do a bit of digging just to prove that the complaint is valid.

You hit many of the same qualities that define the "average" Usenet Kook. The digging of information that's points to another person and not the moderator of this group. The constant closed-minded-ness, irrespecive of any verified proof out there.

It's unfortunate that phpBB doesn't have a personal "killfile" filter. You were warned before. I have no choice but to throw you in the brig. Archae45 is hearby banned from the KeenSpace forum until he can prove himself not to be a kook.

[Bengaley]

Yeeks.

This a bad time to say I agree with most of Achea's veiws?

Seriously. All prisoners held by the US, regardless of WHY they are held prisoner, have certain rights. This is mainly so that it would encourage equal treatment of our own forces held by other groups.

Will it work with terrorists? No. Does that mean we should give terrorists we've captured special attention with the whips and knives? No, it doesn't. And I'm exaggerating a bit here, so don't ding me on that please.

No, its something called the moral high ground, something that I like to think the US tries to operate from. Keyword: Tries. Not DOES. Attempts. Does not mean always succeed.

And there are people out there who believe a certain way, and will not hear any evidence contrary to their opinions and facts. Doesn't matter which opinions, or which facts, or which people - they will not hear anything contrary, they'll just say "Thats wrong, because..."

/Netto of the bad timing.

[RHJunior]

Nobody disputes that people, even enemy combatant prisoners, have certain rights.

What we dispute is that we are obligated to treat them with kid gloves.

Let me paint a scenario for you. You have two little children, a boy and a girl. They are outside playing one day, when suddenly a van drives up filled with masked, armed thugs. You recognize them as members of a fanatical cult who will gladly DIE, simply to accomplish their mission.

They snatch your precious children off the street, screaming about how they're going to gut them like pigs later that same day.

You grab the nearest weapon and go after them, but they roar off. By blind chance one of these maniacs falls out of the back door of the van and lands on the pavement at your feet.

Your children have, at most, an hour or two to live.

What do you do?

If your answer is anything but "Beat the shit out of the bastard till he coughs up where they're headed," you're no kind of person worth knowing.

The terrorist prisoners in guantanamo and elsewhere aren't just enemy combatants. They are lawless monsters who violate every known principle of honor, humanity, and lawful combat. If they use the Geneva convention for anything, its to study for ways to turn our own principles against us. These aren't "suspected" terrorists, these aren't "connected to" terrorists, these ARE terrorists, captured in the course of blowing American soldiers and Afghani and Iraqi civilians to kingdom come. They were indoctrinated in a cult where they will happily DIE if it means they kill a few Jews or Infidels in the process.

What's more, they are in possession of information that can mean the life or death of innocent people, maybe thousands of them.

And we can't even interrogate them effectively because platoons of hand-wringing diaper-wetters think it's "torture" to intimidate them or make them uncomfortable.

The military should do whatever it takes--- and that means anything and everything shy of actual physical harm--- to get them to blab.

As for Saddam, I say they should have wired him to a 110 line and fired electricity through his nutsack till his nose lit up like a game of "Operation." Then, when he'd finished confessing to where every last stash of gold, cash, and weapons was, they should have lit him up again. THEN turned him back over to the Iraqi people.
That is one creature whose worth as a human being was LONG surpassed by the value of whatever military information he had.

[BoKiana]

And we can't even interrogate them effectively because platoons of hand-wringing diaper-wetters think it's "torture" to intimidate them or make them uncomfortable.

If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong), it was Slick Willy Clinton that gave us the law that while we don't torture people, we can hand the asshat to a country that does (for example, Egypt) and let them have their fun with them to get their info.

[Wallaroo_Blacke]

Even though Thelane is a Wiccan poodle with an
attitude, her kind best describes her as a "legal-beagle".

[Firemane]

Nobody disputes that people, even enemy combatant prisoners, have certain rights.

What bothers me about the situation is the definition of "enemy". My understanding (from following the news, for reference I primarily listen to NPR, which I know has a liberal slant but I believe they also have at least a reasonable respect for the truth) is that a number of arab-americans were nabbed after 9/11 and held under similar conditions (i.e. no lawyer, no outside contact). These were not individuals who had comitted a crime. They were people who were essentially in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've been there and done that (with much less drastic results, mind you), and I can tell you it isn't a lot of fun. Many of them have been released, without ever being charged. If it can happen to them, why can't it happen to your or to me? Because I'm Caucasian? So was Timothy McVeigh.

If I'm 100% off-base in my understanding of this, I invite you to direct me to more credible and dependable information.

It isn't just that I feel that human beings, even those accused of horrible crimes, still retain their basic (inalienable) human rights. I worry that *my* inalienable human rights might be violated on the same principles. There are already too many issues that 'trump' due process, where the accusation itself weighs more heavily than the evidence.

So instead of imagining compassion for terrorists, chalk it up to basic self-interest.

What we dispute is that we are obligated to treat them with kid gloves.

Let me paint a scenario for you. You have two little children, a boy and a girl. They are outside playing one day, when suddenly a van drives up filled with masked, armed thugs. You recognize them as members of a fanatical cult who will gladly DIE, simply to accomplish their mission.

They snatch your precious children off the street, screaming about how they're going to gut them like pigs later that same day.

You grab the nearest weapon and go after them, but they roar off. By blind chance one of these maniacs falls out of the back door of the van and lands on the pavement at your feet.

Your children have, at most, an hour or two to live.

What do you do?

If your answer is anything but "Beat the shit out of the bastard till he coughs up where they're headed," you're no kind of person worth knowing.

Granted. And I understand the importance of interrogating the prisoners for information relating to terrorism. I understand that saying "Pwetty pwease, Mr. Terrorist, won't you tell us?" isn't going to work. At the same time, there needs to be a credible standard as to what does, and does not, constitute torture. There are extremes, of course, where the answer is relatively obvious. Is depriving someone of water torture? Starving them? Playing Britney Spears on repeat 24-hours straight? I don't know. I do know that "indefinate detainment without trial" frightens me as a legal precedent.

Firemane,
respectfully dissenting.

[Frost Wraith]

And we can't even interrogate them effectively because platoons of hand-wringing diaper-wetters think it's "torture" to intimidate them or make them uncomfortable.

The military should do whatever it takes--- and that means anything and everything shy of actual physical harm--- to get them to blab.

Oh yes most definatly. The same thing is used in training Marines, drill instructors used to be able to hit, beat and basically torture recruits if they felt like it, then one night an instructor got drunk and led a platoon into a march into a swamp, where a number of them drowned. But thats another time. Look, if we are allowed to intimidate and discomfort young men and women to insure that they become battle ready Marines, our own people, then we sure as hell dont' see problems with doing it to prisoners of war. As long as it is not physical torture, thats just plain cruelty.

[RKCoon]

RH, weather you like it or not, American and Allied forces MUST still abide by the Geneva convention, (even with as much Dissain as the US government has shown it to date) otherwise you are utterly no better than the savages that need thier asses beat, and you know it. you can kill the fuckers -- just do so cleanly, and plainly. if you take prisoners, give them the proper rights --- or you ARE doing the precice same as they are. It may seem disgusting, and it is, but there ARE limits to how you can treat others --- or yuour just as bad, if not worse, than they are. Sides, i thought, personally, that the whole Christian standpoint was to "treat your enimies well, and allow God to do the punishing", anyway -- or am i wrong on that score?

[Frost Wraith]

RK, you obnoxious, arrogent man. One of these days you might read enough and learn enough to tell when a person is being serious or when they aren't. But then again, your probably not that stupid. I think you knew perfectly well he didn't mean it. You just want to kick the hornet's nest a few times since RH, locked down "Freedom of Religion" and "Beltane, the Boss, or Both?" While I think RH enjoys debating, and did not mind those posts, you are now just stirring up trouble for trouble's sake. I dont' know how he will react to that.

[Sharuuk]

RH, weather you like it or not, American and Allied forces MUST still abide by the Geneva convention, (even with as much Dissain as the US government has shown it to date) otherwise you are utterly no better than the savages that need thier asses beat, and you know it. you can kill the fuckers -- just do so cleanly, and plainly. if you take prisoners, give them the proper rights --- or you ARE doing the precice same as they are. It may seem disgusting, and it is, but there ARE limits to how you can treat others --- or yuour just as bad, if not worse, than they are. Sides, i thought, personally, that the whole Christian standpoint was to "treat your enimies well, and allow God to do the punishing", anyway -- or am i wrong on that score?

The Geneve Convention was written to protect captured UNIFORMED SOLDIERS OF A GOVERNMENTAL MILITARY FORCE. That does NOT include civilian clothed terrorists who are targeting mostly civilian non-combatants. These vermin are ENEMY COMBATANTS AND TERRORISTs, NOT MILITARY SOLDIERS and are therefore NOT COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION!

I feel that short of physically maiming these bastards, we should use whatever means at our disposal to get information that would save both the lives of our troops and the innocent Iraqis that have born the brunt of these cowardly attacks.

[Labrusca]

In WWII, operatives who went in civilian clothes could be shot as spies. We're actually being more lenient than required. The biggest problem is that the ACLU wants these "people" treated like American civilians, which means that instead of a military trial, they would have full rights in American courts, including free consul and years of tying up the courts at American expense.

As prisoners of war, there is NO time limit on how long they can be held. Recall that in other wars, US soldiers were held until the end of the war. We are within right and precedent to keep these terrorists in prison camps as long as it takes to end the war, at very least.

[RKCoon]

Gee, ever get the impression that one's entire point has been missed?


Lemme try this again. I am curious, has anyone READ the Geneva Convention? i DID. it is located here --

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

This is a very long winded, detailed, and precice document. Now, Im no lawyer, but one thing that REALLY caught my attention was how it spelled out a simple fact --- Should one power declare war on another, and should that power be signed onto the Geneva Convention, that power WILL treat its prisoners appropreately. Since your grandiose mr bush has publicly and repeatedly declaired war on terrorism and terrorists, and since terrorist, of the Jihad and otherwise, fall under the realm of organised resistance cells, they MUST be treated appropreately.

So, boys and girls, you tell me --- Does the US Government still abide by the Geneva Convention?

[Sharuuk]

Gee, ever get the impression that one's entire point has been missed?


Lemme try this again. I am curious, has anyone READ the Geneva Convention? i DID. it is located here --

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

This is a very long winded, detailed, and precice document. Now, Im no lawyer, but one thing that REALLY caught my attention was how it spelled out a simple fact --- Should one power declare war on another, and should that power be signed onto the Geneva Convention, that power WILL treat its prisoners appropreately. Since your grandiose mr bush has publicly and repeatedly declaired war on terrorism and terrorists, and since terrorist, of the Jihad and otherwise, fall under the realm of organised resistance cells, they MUST be treated appropreately.

So, boys and girls, you tell me --- Does the US Government still abide by the Geneva Convention?

Tell me this child.....at what point in time was it written and where were the civilian clothed jihadists? Also, would you please tell me and the rest of the class what COUNTRY OR SOVREIGN POWER we have FORMALLY DECLARED WAR on?

HINT: IT'S NOT IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN!!

[RHJunior]

Even though Thelane is a Wiccan poodle with an
attitude, her kind best describes her as a "legal-beagle".

Actually, she was supposed to be an afghan hound.... sigh.....

[RKCoon]

Thats funny, from waht i read, that paticular document did not specify that the actions of war had to be solely agaisnt another COUNTRY, but rather generalised, to include rag tag groups that may be within but functioning sepearate from any country or government.

BUT, we are wandering WAY off topic here lol

[RHJunior]

What bothers me about the situation is the definition of "enemy". My understanding (from following the news, for reference I primarily listen to NPR

Well, there's your first mistake.

Look, if you're expecting NPR or any other branch of the left-leaning media to merely lie outright, you're not giving them enough credit. Mind, over the past 4 or 5 years they've been caught out in some pretty outrageous lies..... but most of the press' sins consist of lies of OMISSION, not of COMMISSION.... carefully leaving out key details, using subtle innuendo and carefully choosing vocabulary to lead the reader.

For instance, when one person makes a proposal, and another opposes, note how the press phrases it..... do they say the opposition "questioned" the politician's conclusion, or that they "attacked" it?

If they say "questioned," odds are the dissenters are liberals and the speaker is a conservative. If they say "attacked", the speaker is a liberal and the dissenters are conservative.

A common one for the war news is "X number of American soldiers were killed today...."..... carefully omitting the fact that said soldiers died in a raid on an "insurgent" stronghold and that they not only took out a few dozen enemy troops but that they also captured a stockpile of enemy weaponry big enough to turn a small city to rubble.... or that they uncovered a torture chamber which "insurgents" had been using to execute Iraqi "traitors and infidels."

For that matter, note that the terrorists, Jihadists, and remnants of the Saddam regime--- who are determined to clap the people of Iraq back in chains--- and the violent murderers who have been trickling across the borders INTO Iraq to attack American outposts and Iraqi civilians--- are referred to as "insurgents," rather than TERRORISTS.
Insurgents are people who wish to overthrow the old order and establish a new one, not reinstate the old.
The real insurgents were the ones in line VOTING last Sunday.



Now, as to the detainees....

Things that are not mentioned include

1)that most of the noncombatant detainees were released within 24 hours, and nearly all were released within 2 days.

2)The ones being held now are combatants--- terrorists killers and some of the most vicious mothers on the face of the planet.

3)"If it can happen to them, why can't it happen to your or to me?" Because, for one thing, unlike the detainees, we are American citizens and legal residents of the United States. Thats another little fact lost in all the smoke: the "noncombatant detainees" who were arrested in America tended to have problems with their Visas--- like not having any.

Besides which: we can't even get them to hold onto <I>confirmed killers</i>. Guantanamo has turned into little more than a terrorist catch-and-release program.


<I>

WASHINGTON (AP) -- At least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been involved in terrorist acts, despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to renounce violence, according to the Pentagon.
At least two are believed to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid of a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman, said last week. Others are at large.

The seven were among 203 detainees released from the prison at the U.S. naval base on Cuba's southeastern tip since it opened in early 2002.

Of those, 146 were let go only after U.S. officials determined they no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value.


Posted at October 19, 2004 04:53 AM</i>

[Squeaky Bunny]

Even though Thelane is a Wiccan poodle with an
attitude, her kind best describes her as a "legal-beagle".

Actually, she was supposed to be an afghan hound.... sigh.....

I thought that is what she is, but that's ok. If that house falls on her, she'll be either a dachshund or a corgi

[Frost Wraith]

I *thought* she was an Afghan, or at least an Irish Setter. The ears, muzzle and tail are the signs. And please dont' insult corgi's like that Squeaky, I own one.

[Wallaroo_Blacke]

Even though Thelane is a Wiccan poodle with an
attitude, her kind best describes her as a "legal-beagle".

Actually, she was supposed to be an afghan hound.... sigh.....

Okaaaaaaaaaayyyyy, my bad on guessing what breed Thelane
was, but still she has the boss beaver by throat with that threat.

I would have said about the LOWER regions, but you know what I
am saying.

[Bengaley]

I find myself aghast.

AGHAST!

HORRIFIED!

The liberal blood in my brain is BOILING!

...or maybe its the fact that not all 'liberals' are 'idiots'.

Or maybe I really am a Moderate. *shrug*

But its AGHAST! And it stands in HORROR!

Why you ask? WHY? WHY THE HORROR? WHAT HORRIBLE THING COULD BE HAPPENING?

I admit RH is right about the Guantanomo Bay thing.

And I must state that although I'm taking the stance opposite his about the treatment of prisoners of war (Bush DID declare war on Terrorism. Its one doomed to fail, lesigh. Not because of the military, they'll keep breaking individual organizations. But... you can't win against something like that by force of arms, just stamp it out and hope the smoldering flames don't light up again)...

Although I'm taking an opposite stance, I must state I only do so because I feel that SOMEONE has to. Call it Devil's Advocate.

In the past couple days I really had to re-evaluate alot of my beliefs about things. But something I havn't had to think twice about is: Anyone using terror tactics should be placed into two catagoires: Those who will stop using terror tactics and start using compromise, and those who need to be shot.

Sadly, the latter catagory is much larger...

Bo? Your area.