- Joined
- Dec 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,588
- Reaction score
- 468
- Location
- Western Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Zoombie? Is that a zombie from the zoo?
You hate rude people and you debate with no etiquette? Ironic.
It provided fear factor and made attacking the US less appealing to the terrorist hordes.
I never said I debate without etiquette.. Just now that my gloves are off.. Normally I apply a very fine etiquette. Zombie, sorry, English is only my fourth language. Have some understanding..
ohh, I forget, you are from the US, you don't have understanding for such things.
Etiquette goes out the window when you pop into a thread and start bashing Americans.
I have never done that unjustifiably.
By bashing Americans, you are bashing all of them. Every single one. That is an ignorant generalization and far from etiquette.
I didn't ignore them? Certainly if I did it must have because they were encrypted inside a bunch of other irrelevant stuff, personal attacks and American debate tactics.
The Good Reverend said:i think we should do what the entire world does. Hold them for the duration of the war and at the end of the war, put some on trial and release others.
These people you talk about here are simply criminals.. What about blackwater and such then? What is their status? Certainly criminals..
If I go down to Afghanistan and start fighting and killing people, then I am nothing but a criminal and should be tried in Afghan courts just like people without uniform who fight against the alliance should.
The UN is a PEACE organization. Wow you guys are so far out.................. Peace is meaningless is what you are really saying.
WHY should I debate with someone who engages in unethical debate and use names and personal attacks rather than facts??
Thats YOUR way, completely unacceptable in Europe.
Because you say so?And now that time is over
This unsupportable statement is rooted in nothng more that jealousy-driven hatred.The ONLY power the US have left is the military, NOTHING else.
Can't respond to what was actually posted, so you go off on a tangent.Its a shame the US learn so little of from the second world war, yet took so much to the methods of the Nazis and improved them. Its like half the country is in hypnosis, its just unrealistic to watch..
People have always been acting like stupid sheep though and probably always will.
Blackwater are criminals? in what jurisdiction? what crime has Blackwater committed.....
The UN is a peace organization?The UN is a PEACE organization. Wow you guys are so far out.................. Peace is meaningless is what you are really saying.
To commit a crime, you have to commit an act that breaks a criminal law.I thought Blackwater could commit no crime.
I thought Blackwater could commit no crime. They're sort of like the terrorists, a new status created to avoid jurisdiction in any court.
:lol: that's why a few are being held for trial.
Yet you want to hold an entire organization for the accused failures of a few?
You fail.
next.
Sorry, they can be held accountable. With world-wide media outcry and dozens of highly trained investigators who only pursued the case due to an order from higher up.
Also, I misspoke. Should have said "Blackwater Employees" or Civilian Military Contractors in Iraq.
Actually it is the opposite. Pressure one guy who worked for blackwater with prison for the rest of his life and get him to lie about his buddies.
You should have stopped at "misspoke"......
See blackwater, who I have done training with, are vip and asset protection specialists, they protect a person or a thing...
How does going on a kill crazy rampage as couch sitting halo playing morons suggest, helping to accomplish the mission?
How about panicking when you think you are under attack, then going on a kill crazy rampage to save your own ass?
So the media coverage of the event in question was completely made up? The dead people aren't real and Iraqi's are liars?
I don't think Civilian Military contractors are bad, I just believe they should be under a judicial jurisdiction which has a realistic chance of upholding justice without the need for a global media outcry.
Have you ever been in combat?
Nope, simply innocent until proven guilty........ I tend to believe former special ops over the press....
I believe as well they should be held under a reasonable code of justice in this case a contract that spells out crimes.
They may be innocent, but I believe the amount of outcry needed for this case to even exists shows the shortcomings of the arrangement. The charges probably are inflated by the media, but accusations should be investigated to ensure justice. The fact is the only way those accusations were able to reach the relevant justice department was via the media spin.
Its great if the contract spells out crimes, but who is going to enforce them? Not the military and not the Iraqi justice system.
The reason why Guantanamo is controversial is not because it violates international law, but because it sidesteps international law. Because terrorists are a form of combattant not directly covered by the GC, technically the U.S. is not violating any laws.
However, in principle, it is questionable since the U.S. did sign the Geneva Convention under the premise that unfair detention and questionable interrogation methods are not valid under a just international system.
It's basically a moral/ethical debate considering the U.S. signed that Convention in good faith.
The U.S. has lost face in the matter because it has, in the past, tried to portray itself as a nation of justice and liberty, and yet it has demonstrated that it won't play fairly according to its own image if a piece of paper is not telling it to.
So basically, my issue is that the U.S. is operating under a hypocrisy. If you are actually a nation that detains people unfairly and sidesteps international law, then stop pretending you are so goody goody, when you are just like every other country.
It's not that the U.S. has the "right" to create Guantanamo, it's that it can.
The Bush Administration cherry picked technicalities that casted reasonable doubt on the application of the GC to terrorist detainees.
The key point that matters is that this reasonable doubt was never heard in an international court, but was one government's say-so.
As one of the world's hegemonic powers, its questionable acts are untouchable. If a smaller, less powerful nation did something like that, it would likely be attacked or stripped of economic resources, or dragged in front of a world court. Once again, the reasons for this political mess are power related.
Also, not all conditions at Guantanamo were in violation of the GC anyway. For instance, Bush said in this White House press release that: "the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists." Since the Taliban was the Afghani government, they are considered detainees of a sovereign State and thus the GC applies. Terrorists, however, are transnational actors and therefore, according to Bush, detaining them as actors of sovereign states is not an applicable policy since terrorist networks operate globally. This means the Bush admin can do whatever it wants to those detainees, including water boarding.
I would, however, have preferred to let an international court decide on that one.
However, that would never happen, due to the level of power the U.S. has.
That said, the Bush Admin has already made several statements about the proper treatment of the prisoners (i.e. proper meals, access to religious rites, etc). The issue of waterboarding is something else, however, and I don't agree that it's a fair practice.
The next time the U.S. points the finger at anyone else regarding unfair detention practices or even torture, it will have zero credibility.
I don't think Civilian Military contractors are bad, I just believe they should be under a judicial jurisdiction which has a realistic chance of upholding justice without the need for a global media outcry.
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?