- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
danarhea said:Documents obtained by the Civil Liberties Union show that senior officials in the administration approved of techniques which the FBI determined to be unlawful. What angered the FBI agents assigned to Gitmo was the fact that the DoD personnel identified themselves to the detainees as FBI agents. The papers also show that the General Counsel of the Navy, Alberto Mora, tried unsuccessfully to stop the abuse of prisoners.
The documents show that officials high in the Bush administration, including the Deputy Secretary of Defense, approved of these methods, in spite of the efforts of FBI and US Navy personnel to put a stop to them because they had determined them to violate both American and International law.
Article is here.
danarhea said:Documents obtained by the Civil Liberties Union show that senior officials in the administration approved of techniques which the FBI determined to be unlawful. What angered the FBI agents assigned to Gitmo was the fact that the DoD personnel identified themselves to the detainees as FBI agents. The papers also show that the General Counsel of the Navy, Alberto Mora, tried unsuccessfully to stop the abuse of prisoners.
The documents show that officials high in the Bush administration, including the Deputy Secretary of Defense, approved of these methods, in spite of the efforts of FBI and US Navy personnel to put a stop to them because they had determined them to violate both American and International law.
Article is here.
Do you admit or deny that the documents exist?KCConservative said:How many times has rawstory biten you on the behind, dana. You'd think you'd learn by now. But then again, I know you have a daily new thread quota. :mrgreen:
cherokee said:I'm sorry but I could give a rats a$$ about those people.
They are POW's/enemy combatants or whatever.
At least they're not being beheaded for aljazeera.
Yes I know I wont win any humanity awards.
danarhea said:Then maybe I will not decide to put in any humanity awards for myself if the same should ever happen to you.
cherokee said:I'm sorry but I could give a rats a$$ about those people.
They are POW's/enemy combatants or whatever.
At least they're not being beheaded for aljazeera.
Yes I know I wont win any humanity awards.
Make sure you remember this when your sitting in a detention center with no court date set.Originally Posted by cherokee
I'm sorry but I could give a rats a$$ about those people.
They are POW's/enemy combatants or whatever.
At least they're not being beheaded for aljazeera.
Yes I know I wont win any humanity awards.
Billo_Really said:Make sure you remember this when your sitting in a detention center with no court date set.
You don't even know if these people are guilty of anything. They haven't received due process of law. So there's the possibility they are not terrorists at all. They could be people just like you and me.Originally Posted by cherokee
Then tell me what rights do POW's have?
GC.. thats it, nothing more...
Show me the treatment they have shown the US
I'll take the nude photo chit over my
head being cut off any damn day...
I don't care for head-choppers either. But putting 200,000 people homeless is pretty bad too.Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture
and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody
Last Updated May 24, 2004
International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non-citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called “security detainee” or “unlawful combatant.” And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm
Billo_Really]You don't even know if these people are guilty of anything. They haven't received due process of law. So there's the possibility they are not terrorists at all. They could be people just like you and me.
It is illegal to treat anyone that way.
I don't care for head-choppers either. But putting 200,000 people homeless is pretty bad too.
The only organization that the military has allowed to see the detainee's is the ICRC. And this is because they have a policy of not publishing their reports. They just turn their findings and recommendations over to government representatives.Originally posted by cherokee
How are they being treated? Do you or anyone else have anything more then rumors and hearsay? If it was truly that bad wouldn’t the Red Cross report of 2004 and stated that or made it way to the free press?
Iraqi residents in Falluja.Originally posted by cherokee
What 200k people? Afghan or Iraq?
The only organization that the military has allowed to see the detainee's is the ICRC. And this is because they have a policy of not publishing their reports. They just turn their findings and recommendations over to government representatives.
Iraqi residents in Falluja.
Because you can't destroy 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, California in that amount of time with car bombs. It's a pretty sick mind that thinks it's OK to put over 200,000 people homeless just to get at less than 1/10th of one percent of the population. International Law says you have to take every precaution ensure their safety. Shooting everything that moves, is not ensuring safety.Originally posted by cherokee
Falluja?
Are you serious? It was a safe haven for insurgents. It had to be cleared out period! And what makes you so sure its was the US who made those people homeless?
Would you be willing to give a rat's *** about the conduct of our govt?cherokee said:I'm sorry but I could give a rats a$$ about those people.
Billo_Really said:Because you can't destroy 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, California in that amount of time with car bombs. It's a pretty sick mind that thinks it's OK to put over 200,000 people homeless just to get at less than 1/10th of one percent of the population. International Law says you have to take every precaution ensure their safety. Shooting everything that moves, is not ensuring safety.
Would you be willing to give a rat's *** about the conduct of our govt?
Billo_Really said:International Law says you have to take every precaution ensure their safety. Shooting everything that moves, is not ensuring safety.
Billo_Really said:Because you can't destroy 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, California in that amount of time with car bombs. It's a pretty sick mind that thinks it's OK to put over 200,000 people homeless just to get at less than 1/10th of one percent of the population. International Law says you have to take every precaution ensure their safety. Shooting everything that moves, is not ensuring safety.
Yes, I am aware of the good things that are going on in Iraq. I know it is not all bad. I know we are rebuilding their infrastructure. It's just that I hold my country to a higher standard than others and when I see reports like this I just go berserk. Here's the link.Originally posted by oldreliable67
Again with this?
> Ample opportunity was given for any that wanted to leave to do so. Any that remained knew that an attack was coming. And no, that doesn't make those that remained automatically fair game; certainly some were unable to leave for whatever reasons. But it did give any that remained (including insurgents) an opportunity to prepare shelter and provisions.
> How sure are you of that 75% figure? What is your source for that specific estimate?
> You say 200,000 homeless. Again, how sure are you of that figure? What is your source for that particular figure?
> "Shooting everything that moves" suggests that our Rules of Engagement changed considerably for Fallujah. What is your source for "everything that moves"?
Are you aware of our follow-on rebuilding program in Fallujah?
An unexpected measure of success came on election day last week. Nearly 8,000 people here defied insurgent threats and voted, according to US military officials. That figure accounts for 44 percent of all votes cast in Anbar Province, which includes the Sunni triangle, where antielection feeling was so strong that less than 7 percent voted at all.
New sense of security
Iraqis say the result shows how secure Fallujahns are beginning to feel, and note with added surprise that more than a few said their ballot was for Iyad Allawi, the US-backed interim prime minister who ordered the Fallujah invasion.
"It's better that the Americans are here," says Abdulrahab Abdulrahman, a teacher who carries a folder containing a compensation claim for the damage to his house. "I have the freedom to be a student, or whatever I want to be."
The mujahideen "are gone," he says, clearly pleased, standing on a street strewn with rubble. "They are finished."
Children wave at the marines, and accept candy that the men keep in cargo pockets, alongside stun grenades and extra rifle magazines. Many adults wave, too, though some look sullenly past.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0208/p01s02-woiq.html
I definately agree that both sides of the issue must be presented.Originally posted by oldreliable67
Just to provide a little balance, here is an excerpt from a CSM article on the aftermath of Fallujah...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?