Has America Become a Machine of Evil?

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Or...................maybe they'd like us just to stop bombing them!

Were we bombing them on 9-11? Were we bombing them when the U.S.S. Cole happened, how about the 2 Embassy bombings, how about the first WTC bombing, how about Beiruit. Gimme a ****ng break Billo the lack of your insite into the enemies state of mind is staggering, this is not an enemy like in North Vietnam where if we pull out they'll quit fighting this enemy will follow us home. We are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq and you think we're the bad guys here? Do you know anything about the middle east or just what you read on Al-Jazeera.com? Have you ever heard of the Grand Mufti al-Histani, or Sayyid Qutb and Jahillya, perhaps you've heard of the Islamic Brotherhood? The link between Islamic extremism and Nazism isn't a joke Islamo-Fascism isn't a buzz word, it's an accurate portrayal of their beliefs and the government which they want to form in their Pan-Islamic empire.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Were we bombing them on 9-11? Were we bombing them when the U.S.S. Cole happened, how about the 2 Embassy bombings, how about the first WTC bombing, how about Beiruit. Gimme a ****ng break Billo the lack of your insite into the enemies state of mind is staggering, this is not an enemy like in North Vietnam where if we pull out they'll quit fighting this enemy will follow us home. We are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq and you think we're the bad guys here? Do you know anything about the middle east or just what you read on Al-Jazeera.com? Have you ever heard of the Grand Mufti al-Histani, or Sayyid Qutb and Jahillya, perhaps you've heard of the Islamic Brotherhood? The link between Islamic extremism and Nazism isn't a joke Islamo-Fascism isn't a buzz word, it's an accurate portrayal of their beliefs and the government which they want to form in their Pan-Islamic empire.

I'm against aggression and imperialism irregardless of what flag it is done under. Whether you are an Islamic Mullah, or an American Mullah, I will speak out against you.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm against aggression and imperialism irregardless of what flag it is done under. Whether you are an Islamic Mullah, or an American Mullah, I will speak out against you.

Umm then why aren't you speaking out against Al-Qaeda? And why are you speaking out against the U.S. when we are not an empire but rather a Republic. We don't conquer territory we liberate it and establish Democracy that is about the furthest you can get from imperialism I'd say.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Umm then why aren't you speaking out against Al-Qaeda? And why are you speaking out against the U.S. when we are not an empire but rather a Republic. We don't conquer territory we liberate it and establish Democracy that is about the furthest you can get from imperialism I'd say.

I have spoken out against al Qaida. I have never said one thing condoning what they have done. I hope their members are caught and removed from society for as long as the courts deem.

Liberation is when we act in concert with the United Nations. Aggression is when we decide ourselves that it is in our interests to do so without any regard for the impact it has on other nations. Not even you can tell me that we cared what anyone else said when we decided to attack. Maybe the British, but that's about it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Liberation is when we act in concert with the United Nations. Aggression is when we decide ourselves that it is in our interests to do so without any regard for the impact it has on other nations. Not even you can tell me that we cared what anyone else said when we decided to attack. Maybe the British, but that's about it.

lmfao then perhaps the U.N. shouldn't be dominated by the same dictatorships that we're trying to liberate.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
lmfao then perhaps the U.N. shouldn't be dominated by the same dictatorships that we're trying to liberate.

I think we dominate them more than anyone else. There's not one International Lawyer that can be found to say the US attack on Iraq was sanctioned due to 1441 or 678. Yet, the UN has not come out and officially issued a resolution condemning the assault. In fact, if you look at the Iraqi resolutions that have come out since 2003, it looks like they are bending over backwards to accomodate us.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I think we dominate them more than anyone else. There's not one International Lawyer that can be found to say the US attack on Iraq was sanctioned due to 1441 or 678. Yet, the UN has not come out and officially issued a resolution condemning the assault. In fact, if you look at the Iraqi resolutions that have come out since 2003, it looks like they are bending over backwards to accomodate us.

And maybe their voice would actually hold some say if they were not corrupt to the core and dominated by the very same tyrants that we oppose.

Example:

The Sudan. Collin Powell went to the U.N. and stated that what was going on in the Sudan was infact genocide and that the U.N. needed to act on the grounds of a humanitarian crisis, rather than intervene the U.N. placed the Sudan on the human rights commission because the human rights commission member states are exempt from investigation and intervention. How do you like that Billo? The U.N. supports genocide.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
And maybe their voice would actually hold some say if they were not corrupt to the core and dominated by the very same tyrants that we oppose.

Example:

The Sudan. Collin Powell went to the U.N. and stated that what was going on in the Sudan was infact genocide and that the U.N. needed to act on the grounds of a humanitarian crisis, rather than intervene the U.N. placed the Sudan on the human rights commission because the human rights commission member states are exempt from investigation and intervention. How do you like that Billo? The U.N. supports genocide.

You make a good point on the Sudan issue. I can't argue against that one. I just think that unless your a member of the UNSC, your influence can only go so far. The UNSC is the one with the real teeth to sink into an issue. Everyone else are just making comments.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You make a good point on the Sudan issue. I can't argue against that one. I just think that unless your a member of the UNSC, your influence can only go so far. The UNSC is the one with the real teeth to sink into an issue. Everyone else are just making comments.

There are five permanent members of the U.N. security council, however, Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for 2-year terms starting on January 1, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. The African, North/South American, Asian, and Western European blocs choose two members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses one member. The last seat rotates every two years between Asia and Africa, currently Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.N._Security_Council

So let's do a run down of those elected member states that are on the council right now:

1. Argentina (Americas)
2. Republic of the Congo (Africa)
3. Denmark (W. Europe)
4. Ghana (Africa)
5. Greece (W. Europe)
6. Japan (Asia)
7. Peru (Americas)
8. Qatar (Asia)
9. Slovakia (E. Europe)
10. Tanzania (Africa)

Congo:

Status: Partly Free

Qatar:

Status: Not Free

Tanzania:

Status: Partly Free

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15&year=2005

So the run down is two pseudo dictatorships and one actual dictarships on the temporary council and for the permanent members you have China which is most certainly a dictatorship and prior to 1990 you had the Soviet Union as well.

Of the 191 nations in the United Nations only about 40 percent (85 countries) are democratic societies that enjoy political rights and civil liberties. The rest are either controlled by dictators or by a one-party government.

In 48 of the nations, dictators wield an iron hand. Thirty-five percent of the world's population is subjugated by those totalitarian governments. Fifty-nine other countries are controlled by one-party governments in which institutions like the judiciary and the press are not free from government influence or control. One country with a population of 23 million, which has a free government, is a pariah nation, not allowed entry into the United Nations: Taiwan.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/22/230948.shtml

We need a new international supra-national assembly which only allows membership to Democratic nations only.

Let's take a look at the Human Rights Commission:


1. Argentina

2005​

2. Armenia

2007​

3. Australia

2005​

4. Bhutan

2006​

5. Brazil

2005 ​

6. Burkina Faso

2005 ​

7. Canada

2007​

8. China

2005​

9. Congo

2006​

10. Costa Rica

2006​

11. Cuba

2006 ​

12. Dominican Republic

2006​

13. Ecuador

2007​

14. Egypt

2006 ​

15. Eritrea

2006 ​

16. Ethiopia

2006​

17. Finland

2007​

18. France

2007​

19. Gabon

2005​

20. Germany

2005 ​

21. Guatemala

2006​

22. Guinea

2007​

23. Honduras

2006​

24. Hungary

2006​

25. India

2006 ​

26. Indonesia

2006​

27. Ireland

2005​

28. Italy

2006​

29. Japan

2005 ​

30. Kenya

2007 ​

31. Malaysia

2007​

32. Mauritania

2006​

33. Mexico

2007 ​

34. Nepal

2006​

35. Netherlands

2006​

36. Nigeria

2006​

37. Pakistan

2007​

38. Paraguay

2005​

39. Peru

2006​

40. Qatar

2006 ​

41. Republic of Korea

2007 ​

42. Romania

2007​

43. Russian Federation

2006​

44. Saudi Arabia

2006​

45. South Africa

2006 ​

46. Sri Lanka

2005 ​

47. Sudan

2007 ​

48. Swaziland

2005​

49. Togo

2007 ​

50. Ukraine

2005​

51. United Kingdom

2006​

52. United States of America

2005​

53. Zimbabwe

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Let's take a look at the Human Rights Commission:

You were doing so well until you got to this. Right now, we are in no position to criticize other nations on human rights.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You were doing so well until you got to this. Right now, we are in no position to criticize other nations on human rights.

That's total bullshit Billo, there is a world of difference between using coercive interrogation on known terrorists; such as, Kaleid Shek Mohammad and what Sudan, China, and Cuba does.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
That's total bullshit Billo, there is a world of difference between using coercive interrogation on known terrorists; such as, Kaleid Shek Mohammad and what Sudan, China, and Cuba does.

In some ways yes, in some ways no. Torture happens to be an absolute with me. And we absolutely should not torture anyone under any condition. I don't care if we redefine certain terms to make it more palatable. Or that we farm out the torture to other country's to avoid our own laws. Torture is torture. And there is no place for it in a civilized society. Therefore, as long as we continue this practice of renditions and dehumanizing treatment of prisoners of war, calling people who haven't even been found guilty of anything in a court of law an "unlawful combatant", we are no better than the Nazis!

When we get back to being the country our forefathers started, then we will be a great nation again. Until then, the road we are currently on sucks!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

In some ways yes, in some ways no. Torture happens to be an absolute with me. And we absolutely should not torture anyone under any condition. I don't care if we redefine certain terms to make it more palatable. Or that we farm out the torture to other country's to avoid our own laws. Torture is torture. And there is no place for it in a civilized society. Therefore, as long as we continue this practice of renditions and dehumanizing treatment of prisoners of war, calling people who haven't even been found guilty of anything in a court of law an "unlawful combatant", we are no better than the Nazis!

When we get back to being the country our forefathers started, then we will be a great nation again. Until then, the road we are currently on sucks!

So what do you propose? A lawyer for every terrorist suspect? This is a war, you do not give lawyers or trials to P.O.W.'s while the fighting is still going on, why would you give them to unlawful combatants? And why the hell shouldn't we send these people back to their countries of origin? That's like saying that we shouldn't deport illegal immigrants.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
So what do you propose? A lawyer for every terrorist suspect? This is a war, you do not give lawyers or trials to P.O.W.'s while the fighting is still going on, why would you give them to unlawful combatants? And why the hell shouldn't we send these people back to their countries of origin? That's like saying that we shouldn't deport illegal immigrants.

I'm against incarcerating anyone without charges. And without due process of law, we have no idea who or what they are. We have released many of these people after holding them for months without any explanation. Some we gave a couple hundred bucks too and told them to have a nice day. For us to be a great nation, we have to stand for something better than that.

If we do have terrorists in custody, we give them a trial, a public defender, a jury of their peers, convict their a.s.s.e.s, then lock them up to be someone's jail-house bitch! But we can't seem to convict anyone. The way the government has presented evidence is pretty bad. It is so bad, that a public defender can look like Johnny Cochran in these cases.

I might agree with you if we could convict any of these guys. The only one that has been found guilty, is because he PLEAD guilty! That's not a good enough reason to trash our Constitution and it's system of justice.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm against incarcerating anyone without charges. And without due process of law, we have no idea who or what they are. We have released many of these people after holding them for months without any explanation. Some we gave a couple hundred bucks too and told them to have a nice day. For us to be a great nation, we have to stand for something better than that.

If we do have terrorists in custody, we give them a trial, a public defender, a jury of their peers, convict their a.s.s.e.s, then lock them up to be someone's jail-house bitch! But we can't seem to convict anyone. The way the government has presented evidence is pretty bad. It is so bad, that a public defender can look like Johnny Cochran in these cases.

I might agree with you if we could convict any of these guys. The only one that has been found guilty, is because he PLEAD guilty! That's not a good enough reason to trash our Constitution and it's system of justice.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states that we have to give foriegners captured on a battle field a trial. We can give them a military tribunal that's all they are entitled to if that. This is a war not a law enforcement operation and when you treat as one 9-11's are the result. We give every citizen of this country a fair trial as they are entitled. Moussawi is going to be found guilty and probably executed for his involvement in 9-11, he confessed on the witness stand.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states that we have to give foriegners captured on a battle field a trial. We can give them a military tribunal that's all they are entitled to if that. This is a war not a law enforcement operation and when you treat as one 9-11's are the result. We give every citizen of this country a fair trial as they are entitled. Moussawi is going to be found guilty and probably executed for his involvement in 9-11, he confessed on the witness stand.

I found this at the Constitution website which indicates that due process applies to anyone that is taken into custody within our jurisdiction. Whether their American or not.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I found this at the Constitution website which indicates that due process applies to anyone that is taken into custody within our jurisdiction. Whether their American or not.

A) That applies to when they are taken under custody within our borders.

B) It doesn't apply to wartime.

 

[Goobieman]

A) That applies to when they are taken under custody within our borders.

B) It doesn't apply to wartime.

Billo has an incredible ability to read the entire constitution and yet understand none of it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Billo has an incredible ability to read the entire constitution and yet understand none of it.

I understand you would rather torture children than stop lying to yourself.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I understand you would rather torture children than stop lying to yourself.

Oh yes Billo all of us evil Republicans just love torturing little Iraqi children to get our kicks. :roll:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
A) That applies to when they are taken under custody within our borders.

B) It doesn't apply to wartime.

Why would it only apply to within our borders when the military is prohibited (with some exceptions) from doing operations within our borders.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why would it only apply to within our borders when the military is prohibited (with some exceptions) from doing operations within our borders.

Umm because that section of the Constitution doesn't mention the military in any way?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Umm because that section of the Constitution doesn't mention the military in any way?

OK. That's good enough for me.