Originally posted by: irwincur
ACLU, enough said. The center of the anti-military movement since 1960.
Where in the ACLU charter does it say that they are to protect non Americans, not on American soil, under the American constitution? After all, it is their job to uphold the constitution, which in most legal opinions only applies to those that live under its guideline.
Unless now the liberals feel safe is saying that the American consitution applies to everyone in the world - effectively claiming control of everyone in the world. Seems to me that this is what they are trying to do.
Originally posted by: raildogg
I'm sick of the abuse our soldiers are taking from these dirty rats. They are risking their lives over there for you and I, so what if they made fun of a few terrorists?
So what if a few suspects got pranks pulled on them?
If you're going to hold someone accountable, that better be Rumsfeld or Bush, don't go after these courgeous soldiers. In fact, if it takes a bit of humiliation to get these terrorist thugs to speak, then by all means do it.
Why doesn't the ACLU, or any left wing groups speak out when the terrorist thugs saw off heads of men and women? And they possibly might behead the Italian female journalist they are holding. I haven't heard one word from the left wing wacko groups over the terrorist attacks that kill dozens of Iraqis each day.
The enemy isn't Bush, the enemies are the Islamic terrorists.
Looks to me our priorities are all mixed up.
Article 13 (Geneva Convention)
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
Originally posted by: raildogg
I'm sick of the abuse our soldiers are taking from these dirty rats. They are risking their lives over there for you and I, so what if they made fun of a few terrorists?
So what if a few suspects got pranks pulled on them?
If you're going to hold someone accountable, that better be Rumsfeld or Bush, don't go after these courgeous soldiers. In fact, if it takes a bit of humiliation to get these terrorist thugs to speak, then by all means do it.
Why doesn't the ACLU, or any left wing groups speak out when the terrorist thugs saw off heads of men and women? And they possibly might behead the Italian female journalist they are holding. I haven't heard one word from the left wing wacko groups over the terrorist attacks that kill dozens of Iraqis each day.
The enemy isn't Bush, the enemies are the Islamic terrorists.
Looks to me our priorities are all mixed up.
Originally posted by: MrPickins
Originally posted by: raildogg
I'm sick of the abuse our soldiers are taking from these dirty rats. They are risking their lives over there for you and I, so what if they made fun of a few terrorists?
So what if a few suspects got pranks pulled on them?
If you're going to hold someone accountable, that better be Rumsfeld or Bush, don't go after these courgeous soldiers. In fact, if it takes a bit of humiliation to get these terrorist thugs to speak, then by all means do it.
Why doesn't the ACLU, or any left wing groups speak out when the terrorist thugs saw off heads of men and women? And they possibly might behead the Italian female journalist they are holding. I haven't heard one word from the left wing wacko groups over the terrorist attacks that kill dozens of Iraqis each day.
The enemy isn't Bush, the enemies are the Islamic terrorists.
Looks to me our priorities are all mixed up.
So according to this:
Article 13 (Geneva Convention)
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
You are advocating violations of internaitional treaty by which we have agreed to be bound. Even if there was no "abuse" only "pranks" as you say, that is still a violation.
Our president knows this, but has shown through his actions that he doesn't give a sh*t about the feelings of the international community.
My question is : How can the mistreatment of Islamic pow's result in anything but more hatred towards the United States (and thus more terrorists)?
Seems we're working against our own cause here.
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: MrPickins
Originally posted by: raildogg
I'm sick of the abuse our soldiers are taking from these dirty rats. They are risking their lives over there for you and I, so what if they made fun of a few terrorists?
So what if a few suspects got pranks pulled on them?
If you're going to hold someone accountable, that better be Rumsfeld or Bush, don't go after these courgeous soldiers. In fact, if it takes a bit of humiliation to get these terrorist thugs to speak, then by all means do it.
Why doesn't the ACLU, or any left wing groups speak out when the terrorist thugs saw off heads of men and women? And they possibly might behead the Italian female journalist they are holding. I haven't heard one word from the left wing wacko groups over the terrorist attacks that kill dozens of Iraqis each day.
The enemy isn't Bush, the enemies are the Islamic terrorists.
Looks to me our priorities are all mixed up.
So according to this:
Article 13 (Geneva Convention)
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
You are advocating violations of internaitional treaty by which we have agreed to be bound. Even if there was no "abuse" only "pranks" as you say, that is still a violation.
Our president knows this, but has shown through his actions that he doesn't give a sh*t about the feelings of the international community.
My question is : How can the mistreatment of Islamic pow's result in anything but more hatred towards the United States (and thus more terrorists)?
Seems we're working against our own cause here.
Haha, the thing is that they aren't classified as POW's so it doesn't apply to them.
Originally posted by: raildogg
It took the murder of 200,000 Japanese to end the war, if these groups existed back then, they would fought against that with all they could. They would have called it a crime against humanity, but in reality it saved more people from death than it actually killed.
It took a courageous Democrat to end the war. Something rare is today's times.
They vwere also about to start production of a couple of different models of Jet Airplanes that would have been undefensible and would have caused havoc on our fleet. Ending the War when we did the way we did was the best option.Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: raildogg
It took the murder of 200,000 Japanese to end the war, if these groups existed back then, they would fought against that with all they could. They would have called it a crime against humanity, but in reality it saved more people from death than it actually killed.
It took a courageous Democrat to end the war. Something rare is today's times.
Dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan wasn't required to end the war. The Japanese were making overtures for surrender prior to that bomb dropping.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: raildogg
It took the murder of 200,000 Japanese to end the war, if these groups existed back then, they would fought against that with all they could. They would have called it a crime against humanity, but in reality it saved more people from death than it actually killed.
It took a courageous Democrat to end the war. Something rare is today's times.
Dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan wasn't required to end the war. The Japanese were making overtures for surrender prior to that bomb dropping.
Originally posted by: irwincur
The Conventions DO NOT apply to non uniformed fighting forces.
Any random dumb f*ck knows this by now, why is it taking the average liberal longer to get it. The Conventions are rules of war, not rules of terrorism. It is unfair to bind one side to the rules if the other is outwardly in violation. Like when they purposely kill civilians, reporters, use human shields, dress in civilian garb, etc...
In short - THEY DO NOT APPLY.
If you don't like the rules, make new one. Make ones that say we have to treat hateful, murderous basterds like school children. I am sure that some of you anti American terrorist loving liberal friends in the US and Euroland are working on it right now. I will send my advanced thanks to you for destroying any chance we have of ever winning this war.
Praise Allah, America is bad, because you cannot beat your wife there and rape your neighbors daughters...
For ten years, Coleman worked closely with the C.I.A. on counter-terrorism cases, including the Embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania. His methodical style of detective work, in which interrogations were aimed at forging relationships with detainees, became unfashionable after September 11th, in part because the government was intent on extracting information as quickly as possible, in order to prevent future attacks. Yet the more patient approach used by Coleman and other agents had yielded major successes. In the Embassy-bombings case, they helped convict four Al Qaeda operatives on three hundred and two criminal counts; all four men pleaded guilty to serious terrorism charges. The confessions the F.B.I. agents elicited, and the trial itself, which ended in May, 2001, created an invaluable public record about Al Qaeda, including details about its funding mechanisms, its internal structure, and its intention to obtain weapons of mass destruction. (The political leadership in Washington, unfortunately, did not pay sufficient attention.)
?Brutalization doesn?t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul.?
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: VTrider
Originally posted by: raildogg
I'm sick of the abuse our soldiers are taking from these dirty rats. They are risking their lives over there for you and I
Don't take this the wrong way, but can somebody please explain to me how they are risking (the soldiers) their lives for you and me?
In Afghanistan and in Iraq. Don't forget the police and the military who keep us on safe on the homeland as well. Hats off to them for not letting another attack occur after 9/11.
Their life is always at risk as long as there are evil Islamic terrorist thugs out there. And so is ours.