Shake And Bake

And the rules we're not playing by are??????

 

Once again, Nonuniformed-combatants are not covered by the geneva. The genevea convention was never meant to and does not govern captured terrorist.

 

Again, how do you distinguish between an actual terrorist in the wrong place or someone sold out by a neighborhood tough?

If the US were invaded and people defended their land with weapons, should they be subjected to torture and worse treatment than a soldier?

 

Daisy, if someone invades us and are sucsessful, they will not abide by the geneva convention. It has never happened in modern warfare. I am sorry, but I don't think I owe it an ununiformed terroist who who is not apart of any Army or any declared war who sneaks on an airplane and incenerates thousands of men women and children the benefit of the geneva convention which is ment to govern how Nations conduct war and is also meant to protect the civilians that these terrorist incenerated. Wow, what a run-on sentence.

 

Again, how do you distinguish between an actual terrorist in the wrong place or someone sold out by a neighborhood tough?

If the US were invaded and people defended their land with weapons, should they be subjected to torture and worse treatment than a soldier? </font>[/QUOTE]Is that what you really think? You honestly believe that the ones we are holding as prisoners are fine, upstanding Iraqis who were defending their homeland form the imperialist Americans? You gotta be kidding me!!!

 

Quite a lot of them, yes. How do you determine which are which without hearings, let alone trials? Torture maybe an answer, but it is a very, very bad one.

It's been documented that lot of the people held in prison were not combatants of any kind, just ordinary people who happened to be in the wrong place or who happened to own land that someone else wanted so they were falsely turned it. One of the justifications I've heard for torture is the pressure of time - do they have time to figure out who is who before?

It's not a joke. We invaded a country that posed no immediate or near-term threat to us. Scores of thousands of people have died as a result. Thousands upon thousands have been mutilated - and that's just collateral damage. It seems as though you want to justify that somehow, to make it right in your own eyes by pretending that "they" all deserve whatever "they" get - if "they" get something horrendous, "they" must deserve it.

 

Daisy, did you have a problem when we went into Kosivo and Bosnia?

 

Again, how do you distinguish between an actual terrorist in the wrong place or someone sold out by a neighborhood tough?

If the US were invaded and people defended their land with weapons, should they be subjected to torture and worse treatment than a soldier? </font>[/QUOTE]Is that what you really think? You honestly believe that the ones we are holding as prisoners are fine, upstanding Iraqis who were defending their homeland form the imperialist Americans? You gotta be kidding me!!! </font>[/QUOTE]How the heck do we know? Have you seen the evidence against them? Have I? No! We only have the US Army's word that they were so-called 'combatants' in the first place. Until that word has been tried and tested in a court of law by due process in the normal way, you and I cannot pass comment.

 

"How the heck do we know? Have you seen the evidence against them? Have I? No! We only have the US Army's word that they were so-called 'combatants' in the first place. Until that word has been tried and tested in a court of law by due process in the normal way, you and I cannot pass comment."---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, our courts have no authority in how our Army conducts itself in a foreign action of any kind, and it as very little authroity when it comes to non-citizen illegal aliens who are taken into custody on suspicion of terroism. These folks are not under our constitution.

[ November 23, 2005, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]

 

In what war, and in what universe have captured enemy combatants ever been entitled to a trial? Were the thousands of captured German, American and English troops in WWII all given trials? Did we require combat troops to come testify in a court of law that each enemy troop captured was in fact a bad guy and was shooting at us?

 

In war, captured enemy troops are treated as POWs and afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions. These captives are not however being treated as POWs; therefore the jury is out (heck, it isn't even sworn in!) as to whether these individuals are even enemies or just in the wrong place at thw wrong time. I ask again - where is the evidence? Let's see it, let's see if it will stand up in court. Otherwise we are just speculating here.

 

" let's see if it will stand up in court"-------------------------------------------------------

Leting the courts run a war would be worse than when the congress tried and media tried to run vietnam. That would be a disaster.

"These captives are not however being treated as POWs"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor should they be becaue they are not prisioner of a declared war and are not uniformed. We will have to trust the president on this one. Bu the proof is in the pudding. We have had no significant attacks on our soil since 9/11, and Gadoaffie gladly gave up his nuclear program. Today a leader will think twice before he will allow terrorist to train and equip on his soil. I would do everthig exactly as Bush has done.

 

I find this statement extremely disturbing.

 

I find this statement extremely disturbing. </font>[/QUOTE]I wonder if the Germans of the 1930's had the same mindset.

"We'll have to trust Adolf on this one"

 

Indeed. But in any event, Bush is a politician and, well, I wouldn't trust a politician to sit the right way round on a toilet seat. Same for Blair, if you think I'm being anti-Anerican here: I wouldn't trust Phoney Tony as far as I could throw him.

 

Just as a matter of curiosity, what is (was) your opinion of Churchill and Thatcher?

 

Respected Thatcher, but disagreed with many of her policies and certainly didn't trust her. Churchill was before my time.

 

"I find this statement extremely disturbing. "----------------------------------------------------

Don't make someone your Commander and Chief if you can't trust him, as it is, he is the supreme commander of our military.

And Aslandspal, the left's constant comparison of an conservative Christian such as Bush to Hitler is rediculas.

 

The truth that we used WP? Um that has been in our inventory since at least Vietnam. Do you believe we would be easily equipped with WP grenades, handing them out amoungst the 18 and 19 year olds who serve in this military, and not be able to use them? Kind of fairy land thinking in my opinion.

The truth is going to come out? The truth has been out there for decades. What happened in Fallujah was a battle. We swept the place clean of civilians for FOUR days preceeding the offensive. Rest assured, Bunyon is correct, had their been an experimental weapon or something used we werent too anxious for someone to find out about, you wouldnt find a reporter (MUCH less an Italian one who US troops shot at because her transport wouldnt stop) for miles. That my dear friend is called a non-event.

You can cease support for our efforts in Fallujah or Germany or out to sea, it does not matter. The mission will continue until stabilization. You might as well get used to that. We would like to have your support, but are very used to the double entendre that civilians use as 'supportive comments' that we just dont care much. You can judge, but youd be doing so without much perspective. Your call.

An NBC expert wouldnt have call to come out and give quotes on WP. As you might have missed, NBC experts deal with NBC, not grenades. Maybe you want to hear EOD come out and give interviews?

 

Again, how do you distinguish between an actual terrorist in the wrong place or someone sold out by a neighborhood tough?

If the US were invaded and people defended their land with weapons, should they be subjected to torture and worse treatment than a soldier? </font>[/QUOTE]They are usually detained and interviewed rigorously to determine their status. Alas, hiding in a Mosque pointing a weapon at US soldiers and Marines does indeed make you a person of interest. If they get to detainee status, they are considered lucky, because if you shoot at the military, they will usually assess and dispatch the threat in a matter of seconds. That is called battlefield justice.

We had no people in our detainee facilities that were just turned over to us by word of mouth. All of them were active participants.