The W
Views: 99839862
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.10.14 0319
The W - Current Events & Politics - This is simply shameful (Page 2)
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2090 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (40 total)
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3745 days
Last activity: 3215 days
AIM:  
#21 Posted on

    Originally posted by cokeman

      Originally posted by Nate The Snake
      Eh. Soon, here, they'll be declared "Jim Henson's Unlawful Combatant Babies". Then we can do whatever we want to them, whenever we want, for however long we want. Because we're the US of A! We don't have to follow the rules! We're RICH!

      (edited by Nate The Snake on 22.4.03 1907)



    That's a fucked up point of view.



Tell that to the people who thought it up. You can email 'em really easily. All of their addresses end in ".gov".



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2023 days
Last activity: 1676 days
#22 Posted on
Actually GK had a point for his first post. His other posts got ridiculous. Personnally I don't give a fuck if they shoot, jail, or release all of the Camp X-Ray prisoners but they should be given a fair trial first.
Probably the trial would be a fucked up abortion but the US needs to look like it is following international law. World opinion unfortunately works this way.
1. What the US and Isreal does.
2. What other "European" countries do to each other.
3. What "European" countries do to other countries or peoples.
4. What "Non European" countries do to "Europeans."
5. What "Non Europeans" do to other "Non Europeans."
Basicly no one in the world press gives a shit if 1 million people in Sudan are killed because it's not the evil white man doing the killing. But if Isreal kills 2 Palestenian civilains it is major news. This attitude is what really pisses me off. That only if whites do the killing or dying does a story really matter.
Of course it's always the more "liberal" news outlets that are the worst offenders of this atittude. Wouldn't want to look racist for bringing up the fact that in Thailand there are around 10,000 girls that were sold into sex slavery by their own parents that would be racist wouldn't it? That Jordan and Syria killed hundreds of Palestinians and forced 10's of thousands out of their country (the part that the UN gave for Palestine in 48) back to the camps in Isreal.
So the US should do something about the X-Ray prisoners first because we should follow international law as much as possible. Second because grey areas make me nervous.



Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
Jakegnosis
Morcilla








Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2858 days
Last activity: 2842 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.91

    Originally posted by Dahak
    Actually GK had a point for his first post. His other posts got ridiculous. Personnally I don't give a fuck if they shoot, jail, or release all of the Camp X-Ray prisoners but they should be given a fair trial first.
    Probably the trial would be a fucked up abortion but the US needs to look like it is following international law. World opinion unfortunately works this way.



Godking's posts were ridiculous?

You don't care if they "shoot, jail or release" all the prisoners at Camp X-Ray. We don't even know who all of the prisoners are or why they're being held, but you don't care what happens. It's okay to you if we execute them without a trial, or just let them walk?

We just need to look like we're following international law? Not actually following it? Yeah, it sure is unfortunate that world opinion has actual standards that civilized countries are expected to adhere to. Why can't everyone just act like a savage?

Ridiculous is too kind a word for you.



Rangers Lead the Way!
Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#24 Posted on
The coyote goes...
For starters, GK, the notion of a disabling shot on a suicide bomber is plain fucking rediculous. If they wanna die, they will, and a blown out knee putting me in excrutiating pain makes pushing the button a bit more tempting. (Excuse my foul language, but it is used with the absolute necessity to get my point across that it is beyond just rediculous.)

Secondly, while it can not be proven that they will blow me up, it can't be disproven either. Call me silly for being wary of a child's highly impressionable mind, especially when impressioned highly with violence and intolerance. Granted, it hasn't been disproven that the kid in my neighborhood who blows up frogs and steals will blow me up, but then again the kids a shit who deserves to be on Gitmo anyhow ever since he busted out my tail lights with his Louisville Slugger.

Also, hate-mailing government agencies doesn't sound like to bright an idea to me either, Nate. I doubt you're serious, but if you have the right to pester them, they obviously have the right to pester back.

Although, through and through, it's pretty damn conspicuous that nobody with links to the groups responsible for Oklahoma City and the Atlanta Olympics are at Gitmo...

(edited for grammar)

(edited by Lexus on 23.4.03 0248)


I own a Gamecube, and I own Eternal Darkness.
Ffej
Boudin rouge








Since: 15.1.02
From: Flatwoods, KY

Since last post: 2319 days
Last activity: 628 days
Y!:
#25 Posted on

    Originally posted by godking
    So godking- if thats your real name-

    That's awfully cute, "Ffej".



I thought so! In a roundabout way- Ffej is my real name. My name is Jeff and Ffej is Jeff backwards.






WIENER OF THE DAY! July 6, 2002!

Fear can sometimes be a useful emotion. For instance, let's say you're an astronaut on the moon and you fear that your partner has been turned into Dracula. The next time he goes out for the moon pieces, wham!, you just slam the door behind him and blast off. He might call you on the radio and say he's not Dracula, but you just say, "Think again, bat man."
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3902 days
Last activity: 3871 days
#26 Posted on

    Originally posted by godking
    Yeh no kiddin. Let the underaged terrorists go!! Free the TaliBabies!!

    So, what's your clever plan, then? Jail them for the rest of their lives? I mean, at some point you theoretically have to let them go, unless you've decided that they are automatically future terrorists - and that's one slippery fucking slope you've dug right there when you're imprisoning minors indefinitely with no access to legal counsel and for no stated reason.

    Incidentally, the United States is also in clear violation of the UN Convention On The Rights Of The Child:

    Article 37

    States Parties shall ensure that:

    [...]

    (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;

    (c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;

    (d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.


    Except, whoops, the United States is one of only two countries in the world that refused to sign that treaty (the other being Somalia), so I guess I know where the government stands on that...



Even with quoting this, we aren't breaking B, C, or D at all.



Rorschach: "None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1984 days
Last activity: 1918 days
#27 Posted on
Eh. The US'll just play around with the Geneva Convention until they find a way to justify it. Example: US soldiers/operatives held by Iraq/other nations are PoWs and mistreating them is a disgrace, but enemy soldiers/operatives held by the US are "terrorists" and can therefore be held in whatever conditions they so wish.



Hail To The King, Baby

dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 41 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#28 Posted on

    Originally posted by Lexus

    For starters, GK, the notion of a disabling shot on a suicide bomber is plain fucking rediculous. If they wanna die, they will, and a blown out knee putting me in excrutiating pain makes pushing the button a bit more tempting.



And yet the kids in question are sitting in Camp X-Ray, which would imply that their capture was possible. Ergo common sense dictates they were not 'caught red handed' performing a suicide bombing and thus maybe, just maybe, they deserve a trial before being treated like animals.


(Excuse my foul language, but it is used with the absolute necessity to get my point across that it is beyond just rediculous.)


Consider the foul language excused. Be very nice and I may even overlook the spelling


Secondly, while it can not be proven that they will blow me up, it can't be disproven either.


You see the bastarding thing is that it's damned hard to disprove something. This is why the premise of most civilised judiciary systems puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. If somebody has a gun then obviously we can't prove they're gonna shoot someone, but equally you can't prove they won't. But if you're gonna arrest all the gun owners in the States you'll probably notice some pretty drastic traffic reduction.




"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#29 Posted on

I don't know what everyone's complaining about - this looks like perfectly acceptable way to treat people who haven't even been charged with crime, and are being detained in a foreign country. After all, they are all "Whatever-Name-We-Are-Using-Instead-Of-POW".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1771816.stm


    Originally posted by Lexus
    Secondly, while it can not be proven that they will blow me up, it can't be disproven either.


Wow... just... wow....



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
cokeman
Chorizo








Since: 12.4.03
From: nj (back from iraq)

Since last post: 3283 days
Last activity: 3073 days
#30 Posted on

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Eh. The US'll just play around with the Geneva Convention until they find a way to justify it. Example: US soldiers/operatives held by Iraq/other nations are PoWs and mistreating them is a disgrace, but enemy soldiers/operatives held by the US are "terrorists" and can therefore be held in whatever conditions they so wish.


Yea most of the Iraqi POWs were put in decent facilities where they get fed at least 2 times a day and have a place to sleep and did not get beaten. Well of course there are a couple of exemptions. Not all of the American military are umm…forgiving. If you know what I mean.



Hairy Caray
Bauerwurst








Since: 28.10.02
From: Wrigley Field hot dog stand

Since last post: 3690 days
Last activity: 3688 days
#31 Posted on
So the question on the treatment of these prisoners really boils down to this:

Are terrorists criminals, enemy combatants, or some third category?

One could argue the first mainly based on the fact that no sovreign nation claims them. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that they aren't sponsored by a recognized government (most are in one form or another), and thus could fall under the second category. However, terrorism seems to be a mix of the two. There is no open declaration of war, no open hostilities, and without a nation with which to negotiate, it is hard to work within the framework of the Geneva Convention. Clearly, though, they are not simply felons apprehended by our law enforcement agencies. It would probably benefit all parties to actually create a new set of standards for captured terrorists that defines their rights, especially the right to a trial/legal counsel.

Still, even with our pussyfooting around the issue in regards to the prisoners at Gitmo, they are being treated infinitely better than the prisoners of certain other regimes. Comparing the two and finding them equal is just "stupied" (to steal another Wiener's favorite word).

As to the definition of legal majority, we have clear precedent in this nation for the treatment of persons under the age of 18 as adults, both as criminal suspects and enemy combatants.






Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3902 days
Last activity: 3848 days
#32 Posted on
Even with quoting this, we aren't breaking B, C, or D at all.

Oh, for the love of Christ -

B is broken because the detention isn't in conformity with the law (it's indefinite and without a charge). C is obviously being broken because the kids aren't being given contact with their parents, it's a fucking POW camp. D is being broken because they haven't been given access to a lawyer - none of the Xray captives have been.

Did you actually, like, READ anything, or did you just follow the Ari Fleischer mode of argument and figure if you keep saying "that's not true" it'll become so?
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 542 days
Last activity: 409 days
AIM:  
#33 Posted on
Do we know where these kids are from? Afghanistan? If so, we attacked Afghanistan, and they were defending their country. If they had attacked us on our own soil, this is different.

The only reason they aren't covered under the Geneva Convention, from my readings of the Convention, is because Afghanistan didn't sign the Geneva Convention. Iraq, however, did. So if these kids are from Iraq, they and we are bound under the Geneva Convention.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 9 days
AIM:  
#34 Posted on
I would assume that they wouldn't be covered under the Geneva Convention because they can't be POWs because we never actually declared war. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't actually declared war since WWII - largely to have a technicality to use to get out of international law.




Great warrior? Wars not make one great.
Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#35 Posted on
The coyote goes... dMr, the context of said disabling shot was to be made when they're doing the bombing, not beforehand. Granted, maybe a few disabling shots on 9/11 would have changed things drastically, but seeing as how 9/11 was the first time an attack of that nature and magnitude was executed, we were bound to be caught with our pants down. After all, shooting a guy in the kneecap for looking at plans that detail an attack is kind of extreme. That, and I doubt highly anybody in X-ray have been the trigger man in a suicide bombing, due to the fact that interrogating two fingernails and a tooth really doesn't get you very far.

And you're absolutely right about giving them a fair trial. As soon as we find a completely unbiased party (that which has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States or it's foreign policy, or with the policies of terror), it'll go through. Perhaps Nepal?

Oh, and those convicted of felonies don't get the right to bear arms. We can't prove they'll shoot somebody, we can't disprove it either. Granted, they lost that right, along with the right to vote, after due process and a trial, all under the umbrella of the U.S. Judicial system. Again, though, find the unbiased judge and jury, we'll get the unbiased trial of all those in X-ray.

And it is a shame that society can produce children that some see as deemable of being locked up. If the U.S., widely considered much more "civilized" a society than Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban, can produce the kids at Columbine along with far too many other children who go off on a shooting spree, and kids that are partaking in drugs, sex, and alcohol at 11, imagine what that far too barbaric regime of the Taliban could produce.

Then again, we don't know what the kids in X-ray did or did not do, so before we defend them, let's at least get to know them.

Oops, we don't have access to that info.



I own a Gamecube, and I own Eternal Darkness.
rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3565 days
Last activity: 3443 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.22
Lexus is the only one so far in this debate who has said anything viable: "Then again, we don't know what the kids in X-ray did or did not do, so before we defend them, let's at least get to know them.

Oops, we don't have access to that info."

The rest of it was pretty good, too.

Here's my point: we don't even know how many are being held. More than one under the age of 16, according to the article. Maybe two. Maybe all off the 660 held at Gitmo, but probably not. What's important about this situation is that we need to find out some details before we shoot our mouths off about the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention On The Rights Of The Child, etc. It makes no difference to put views forth on a situation we know next to nothing about.

Here's an example: say there are 10 kids in Gitmo, ages ranging from 13-15, being held because they were caught in separate incidents, smuggling guns and explosives in Afghanistan for the Taliban and killed a few U.S. soldiers during a standoff. After capture, they refused to give any information about themselves, other than threatening to continue fighting the infidels (that means us).

Here's another: say there are 150 kids in Gitmo, ages from 9-15, being held for a plethora of reasons. Some aided the Taliban in some capacity, some were suspected agents, some were picked up for wearing Marilyn Manson t-shirts, some for loitering around the Quick Stop after midnight, kicking cans around the parking lot and hooting at ladies. After capture, some gave their full names, some said their entire families had been killed, others stayed quiet.

In either situation, what exactly are we to do with them? Drop them off in the mountains of Afghanistan so they can continue to do whatever they might do? Or hold them until there's a functioning government in Afghanistan that can do something with them, such as trials or foster care? But it's all irrelevant, because we don't know what the situation is.

As intelligent, fair-minded Americans, we can assume that the truth is closer to the first scenario than the second. I'm not entirely thrilled with anyone being held without representation or the possibility of a trial such as those in Gitmo; in fact, that bothers me more than that simply knowing that children are being held under those circumstances because, GASP, I do trust my government enough to know that those children being held at Gitmo are not part a heinous plot of the Bush adminstration to RUIN THE LIVES OF BILLIONS OF CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD~!

To sum up here, the most important aspect of Gitmo is that people are being held without representation or access to any sort of trial or redress and the article in question is more or less useless for debate purposes because the only information it provides us with that more than one person under the age of 16 is being held. Unless, of course, you're bound and damn determined to undermine the Bush administration at every possible turn.



"Life is tough. Life is tougher if you're stupid."
--John Wayne

"If I can't dazzle you with brilliance, then I'll befuddle you with bullshit."
--"Dirty" Dutch Mantel

Or it's like you lost your keys in the garage, but you look for them in the living room because you know there's another set of keys in there that you need to find anyway.
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2023 days
Last activity: 1676 days
#37 Posted on

    Originally posted by Jakegnosis

      Originally posted by Dahak
      Actually GK had a point for his first post. His other posts got ridiculous. Personnally I don't give a fuck if they shoot, jail, or release all of the Camp X-Ray prisoners but they should be given a fair trial first.
      Probably the trial would be a fucked up abortion but the US needs to look like it is following international law. World opinion unfortunately works this way.



    Godking's posts were ridiculous?

    You don't care if they "shoot, jail or release" all the prisoners at Camp X-Ray. We don't even know who all of the prisoners are or why they're being held, but you don't care what happens. It's okay to you if we execute them without a trial, or just let them walk?

    We just need to look like we're following international law? Not actually following it? Yeah, it sure is unfortunate that world opinion has actual standards that civilized countries are expected to adhere to. Why can't everyone just act like a savage?

    Ridiculous is too kind a word for you.



Hey I like the way you cut off half my post. Way to make sure you got everything I wrote in the first place.
Please read my original post again. The part where I said," after a fair trial." If you really think that I am saying give them a trial, find them innocent, and then execute them you are misunderstanding my post.
I disagree with keeping prisoners in this BS legal limbo. If they are found guilty in a fair court then they should pay the consequences. If they are found not guilty they should be released. Same as any US prisoner.
The problem I see is how to have fair trial? A US court might be biased and would certainly appear to be. A world court would be hard to find. Or at least one where the case was looked at and not just s bunch of countries squabbling.



Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 542 days
Last activity: 409 days
AIM:  
#38 Posted on
Yes, the important thing is we do not know anything about what is going on in a supposedly free country. When children are being held, and it is admitted to, I personally think I have a right to know what's going on. We frankly didn't know what was going on with the prisoners even before we found out there were kids.

I've heard so much about "Well, they're not Americans, so we don't have to apply American laws to them" but all this does is set a precedent wherupon other countries can treat our soldiers anyway they'd like because they are from another country. Seriously, if your kid committed a crime in another country, wouldn't you be quite angry if you had no idea what was going on with that kid, if that kid was getting no trial, was held indefinitely, and you couldn't see them?

Because the simple fact they're withholding any knowledge of the goings on seems to say all this is going on.
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 301 days
Last activity: 22 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.96
My understanding of the legal system of the United States comes from the comparisons to the Canadian system, but here goes:

Every citizen of the United States of America has the constitutional right to a fair and just trial by a jury of his or her peers. If the citizen is a 13-year old boy, as long as he is a citizen he is afforded those same rights. The punishment would probably be scaled down due to the age of the person, but it's the same principle. If the person is committing treason or conspiring to do so, that's a crime to be punished. If the person planning such things is either doing so in another country OR is doing so while illegally in the United States, they shall be shipped back home and tried to the fullest extent of that country's law. We're not here to police the world. We're just here to make sure nobody kills American (or Canadian) citizens.

Liberty isn't about making decisions for others. It's about giving them the opportunity to decide for themselves.



Flames: Golfing

Stampeders: Golfing

Blue Jays: 3-3
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 41 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#40 Posted on

    Originally posted by Lexus
    And you're absolutely right about giving them a fair trial. As soon as we find a completely unbiased party (that which has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States or it's foreign policy, or with the policies of terror), it'll go through. Perhaps Nepal?


Well there's a precedent for such a trial with the Lockerbie bombers. Instead of needing an impartial jury, a panel of judges can poss verdict. Do you really believe that we have the right to hold people indefinately simply because we cant find twelve impartial folks to pass judgement on them?


Oh, and those convicted of felonies don't get the right to bear arms. We can't prove they'll shoot somebody, we can't disprove it either. Granted, they lost that right, along with the right to vote, after due process and a trial, all under the umbrella of the U.S. Judicial system. Again, though, find the unbiased judge and jury, we'll get the unbiased trial of all those in X-ray.


Like you say, these people lost the right to bear arms because they were convicted of a felony. Those at Xray lost the right to freedom after being convicted of nothing. Again, do you really believe that anyone deemed incapable of having a fair trial should be locked up indefinately?



Then again, we don't know what the kids in X-ray did or did not do, so before we defend them, let's at least get to know them.

Oops, we don't have access to that info.



But the point is that unless they were caught red-handed in an act of terrorism, NOBODY really knows what they did. Not us, not the US government, nobody. And yet they're being held without trial as part of this wonderful war on terror. Remember what internment did in Ireland? That was a real winner eh?



"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
Pages: Prev 1 2
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: "Lying our asses off" is SUCH an ugly phrase...
Next thread: The 55 Most Wanted
Previous thread: For those who oppose politicization of the war against Iraq
(2090 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Just to spice things up a little round here... has anyone listened to this Alex Jones guy? Call him a "schlock jock" or "patirot," or just call him Al... (*crickets chirpping*)
- usagi, So, how 'bout that NWO? (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - This is simply shameful (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.143 seconds.