More accounts on US torture :



Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
The Romans were also a tolerant nation and, like the British, had an Empire that stretched from Italy to Gaul all the way to Egypt, Greece, Macedonia, Thrace and so on.
Here is the problem with Empires:
When an Empire spreads its tentacles in the beginning, the cultural influence of the prominent imperial power stretches out towards those particular countries that have been singled out for colonisation e.t.c. To give you an example, the territory of Israel was once a Roman province and Greece was known as Achaia. France and Spain speak Latin languages simply because they were both provinces themselves, Hispania and Galia.
Even Britain was a Roman province that issued Roman coinage and embraced various tribes.
What happens in the long run?
Well, at some point the former imperial centre runs out of steam, becomes overburdened by the whole administrative process of Empire and then suffers a kind of reverse process. The nations and peoples of those satellite countries or provinces (once governed by the imperial power) tend to gravitate ansd flock towards the original centre of Empire, due to the apparent wealth and prosperity of the cultural motherland.
This is what happened to the Romans. If you study the ethnic composition of Rome around 200 B.C. you will find the bulk of the ethnic population was overwhelmingly Italian and Roman (with smaller percentages of Sabines, Thracians and Latins e.t.c.)
By 400 A.D. towards the end of Imperial Rome, the majority ethnic population of the city was mostly comprised of Gauls, Syrians, Greeks, Jews, Dacians, Egyptians and Scythians e.t.c. Therefore we ended up with a multicultural society with no ethnic majority you could single out. But from the Roman perspective, multiculturalism was an extremely negative development.
Archeologists point out there was hardly a Roman face to be seen in the capital of the declining Empire but the new state of affairs also brought social division and unrest. The Romans themselves suffered displacement - something that finally brought about the collapse of Rome as a superpower.
This is why I reject the notion that multiculturalism is a positive trend a country should aspire to.
The same phenomenon is taking place in London, of course. It's estimated that the total population of the British Isles in some short decades from the present period will be comprised of a mere 20 per cent of the former English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh peoples. So, the present indigenous population of the U.K. will eventually become an ethnic minority (the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English). There's a think-tank called Migrationwatch U.K. that has been monitoring the U.K. population growth cycles over the last few years and you can find some interesting facts and figures.
However, if you look at China, it seems hardly likely the Chinese will suffer ethnic decline over the coming century and the same goes for Japan and probably Russia.
As for the U.S., the U.S. is also adopting an imperialistic line but this doesn't involve colonisation as was the case with the Brits and Romans. U.S. citizens have no intention of living in Iraq and most of the U.S.'s imperialistic experience had been down to pure economic expansion and the spread of the dollar. This is why many academics believe the U.S. won't inevitably suffer the same degree of decline as Britain although it's thought the U.S. citizens of tomorrow will probably speak Spanish as el idioma principal.


limerickman said:
I'll repeat what I said earlier - anyone coming to live in a society ought to respect that society.
I've made that point already but it needs to be repeated because I do not agree that Muslims can somehow seek to impose their views in a modern democratic European country.

But it is interesting that you point out that the number of Mosques outnumber churches in your locality.
I have long admired British society for it's tolerance of other ethnic groups (Irish included).
The average British person is the most tolerant person in the world, I think,
given the mix of people who have landed in your country throughout time.

We have a growing Muslim population here : and we also have a growing Chinese population too.
We welcome this.
(Incidentally, I have noticed that we have a lot of English neighbours moving in to our locality too).
This is a good thing, I think.

My point throughout is that Muslims, tend to assimilate in to a culture.

The Jews never assimilated in to society.
They always tended to socialise, work, marry within their own community.
Here are some number from the Sunday Times :
the number of Jewish births fell from 1990-1999 from 3,300 to 2,500.
In 1955, there were 450,000 Jews in Britain.
Today there are 300,000.
By 2020, figure will be 240k, by 2050 figure will be 180,000 and by 2080 the figure will be 140,000 (all figures supplied by the Jewish Board of Deputies).
Rabbi Shaul Rosenblatt says "it;s a crisis, for every one Jew that comes back to Judasim, 50 are leaving".
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
Carrera said:
As for the U.S., the U.S. is also adopting an imperialistic line but this doesn't involve colonisation as was the case with the Brits and Romans. U.S. citizens have no intention of living in Iraq and most of the U.S.'s imperialistic experience had been down to pure economic expansion and the spread of the dollar. This is why many academics believe the U.S. won't inevitably suffer the same degree of decline as Britain although it's thought the U.S. citizens of tomorrow will probably speak Spanish as el idioma principal.
This is true. I would like to point out that I was one of the original poster's equating Rome to the U.S. but I did it to point out the similarities in the amount of decadence (overindulgence) practiced by both societies. FredC pointed out my fallacy in that America is not an empire but that was not my aim, it was only to elucidate the similarities inre: "indulgence". I contend that national borders will become less & less relevant as commerce gravitates towards the digital realm. Carrera, you are correct in the belief that the U.s.'s primary concern is free trade & the societies best suited for that are, at this time, free societies (w/ the exception of red china). I believe president Wilson said-"the business of America is business". Many believe that commerce & consequent exchange of ideas induce freedom. I'm still waiting on the final decision on that maxim.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I've been comparing the U.S. with Rome for some years now but, to be honest, Athens of around 400 B.C. is closer to the U.S. than Rome. The fact is Athens shared the same ideal of expansion of democracy as the U.S. does.
What's really interesting is the comparison between Athens and Sparta as two super power states in the Aegean sea and how Athens came to be the role model for the U.S. while Sparta became a model for the USSR (Sparta being a neo-communist, secretive state that outlawed soft-living and luxury).
Both Athens and Sparta fought an imperialistic war and both set up representative governments in other Greek states, i.e. democracies or socialist oligarchies.
I think the comparison between Rome and Britain would be far more accurate than a comparison between Rome and the U.S. Rome was essentially the same kind of Empire as the British Empire, formed colonies in foreign territories and exported Latin across the globe, romanizing France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and even Romania. However, the decline of Rome is a carbon copy of the decline of Britain and for essentially the same reasons.
But there is a good book written on U.S. economic imperialism you might find interesting (I forget the author) and he concludes the U.S. shouldn't experience the same level of decline in the future as the Romans or British did.
Careful with China. The truth is China is changing a great deal and doesn't fit the description of a red country any more. If you take a trip to Bejing you'll find your fair share of Chinese punk rockers dancing in neon-light discos, getting high and letting their hair down. Some of the Chinese women are pretty gorgeous as well.
You would be making a great career move to learn Chinese as opportunities for foreigners in China will blossom and they even have cycling tours there now (cycling is catching on).


davidmc said:
This is true. I would like to point out that I was one of the original poster's equating Rome to the U.S. but I did it to point out the similarities in the amount of decadence (overindulgence) practiced by both societies. FredC pointed out my fallacy in that America is not an empire but that was not my aim, it was only to elucidate the similarities inre: "indulgence". I contend that national borders will become less & less relevant as commerce gravitates towards the digital realm. Carrera, you are correct in the belief that the U.s.'s primary concern is free trade & the societies best suited for that are, at this time, free societies (w/ the exception of red china). I believe president Wilson said-"the business of America is business". Many believe that commerce & consequent exchange of ideas induce freedom. I'm still waiting on the final decision on that maxim.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
Carrera said:
I've been comparing the U.S. with Rome for some years now but, to be honest, Athens of around 400 B.C. is closer to the U.S. than Rome. The fact is Athens shared the same ideal of expansion of democracy as the U.S. does.
What's really interesting is the comparison between Athens and Sparta as two super power states in the Aegean sea and how Athens came to be the role model for the U.S. while Sparta became a model for the USSR (Sparta being a neo-communist, secretive state that outlawed soft-living and luxury).
Both Athens and Sparta fought an imperialistic war and both set up representative governments in other Greek states, i.e. democracies or socialist oligarchies.
I think the comparison between Rome and Britain would be far more accurate than a comparison between Rome and the U.S. Rome was essentially the same kind of Empire as the British Empire, formed colonies in foreign territories and exported Latin across the globe, romanizing France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and even Romania. However, the decline of Rome is a carbon copy of the decline of Britain and for essentially the same reasons.
But there is a good book written on U.S. economic imperialism you might find interesting (I forget the author) and he concludes the U.S. shouldn't experience the same level of decline in the future as the Romans or British did.
Careful with China. The truth is China is changing a great deal and doesn't fit the description of a red country any more. If you take a trip to Bejing you'll find your fair share of Chinese punk rockers dancing in neon-light discos, getting high and letting their hair down. Some of the Chinese women are pretty gorgeous as well.
You would be making a great career move to learn Chinese as opportunities for foreigners in China will blossom and they even have cycling tours there now (cycling is catching on).
I think you may be making a somewhat of a broad generalization by describing what may be termed as a show of some liberalizing in beijing & going a step further & ascribing those liberalizations as applying to the entire country of china. The old guard is doing all in their power to subjugate the people to their communist party line will. Their pres. is cited as one of the worst 10 dictators/leaders in the world. As far as the us goes, i agree that we will only lose currency, not territories as did rome & britain.
 

Jupiler

New Member
Aug 1, 2004
58
0
6
Carrera said:
I'm sure the film may have been inflammatory but I notice Michael Howard hasn't tried to assassinate the Labour Party spin merchants who played on the anti-semitism theme (by casting Howard in the roll of Fagin) - in their publicity posters against the Conservatives.
Michael Howard (who happens to be of Jewish descent) recently plucked up the courage to tackle the issue of immigration; thus, the Labour Party figured they'd suck up to Moslem voters by having a dig at Howard's ethnicity. This is after the Labour Party had attempted to brainwash people into taking the view anyone who disagrees with their ideas on mass immigration is a racist.
I find that quite staggering to be honest. I mean, after preaching to the rest of us about "chalkboards" and the like, the Labour Party go ahead with an anti-semitic election campaign that would have seen ordinary people brought to the courts had they made condescending remarks about Islam.
That was precisely Kilroy Silk's beef. It's O.K. for radical mullahs to preach hatred of the West in London mosques but when Kilroy dares to take a poke at Arab repression in a speech, he's sacked by the BBC.
However the case may be, there was no hand-wringing from Howard in this case. And I guess I take the view that if Moslems in Holland don't like free speech and criticism they should either leave, or learn to put up with the values we have in free societies - freedom of speech.
I take the point about the Jews having caused problems for themselves throughout history but I think all groups who remain separate experience such problems. For example, the Romans persecuted Christians since it was believed they were guilty of "odio generis humanis". Philosophers and alchemists were likewise persecuted as well as gays at different points of time.
The difficulty here is that, although you correctly point out the Jews have suffered pogroms in countries such as Russia or Germany, you skipped over the fact that these days Europe is experiencing worse problems with Islamic immigrants who oppose western, democratic values. Again, if you take a look at the situation in France it was chiefly the Moslems who protested over the prohibition of veils and skull-caps in secular schools. In Spain, extremist groups of Islamic fanatics carried out the train bombing atrocity, not Jewish radicals. In Holland, there have been far worse problems than in France and Belgian police had to control an Arab riot in the streets over the staging of a beauty contest for women. In Russia a small group of cowardly so-called Islamic warriors took a school full of children hostage, hid behind them as human shields and then shot them in the back while Russian security forces attempted to get the hostages out. As I recall the Russian troops were ordered to sacrifice their own lives if it meant sparing one of the children.
Now, sure, I agree with you that the Israelis shouldn't have degraded the Palestinian settlers in the way they have done and I agree the Israeli army is far too heavy handed. However, there have been no cases of Israeli soldiers hiding behind women and children as human shields or sheltering in their religious temples during conflict. And I'm not saying all Moslems behave in such a way, of course. But I do think your conclusion that the Jews are the cause behind the present unrest seems to totally ignore the reality that certain branches of Islamic fanaticism lies at the heart of many woes.
The greatest Moslem of all Muhammad Ali condemned all these terrorist groups as do many other Moslems.
Finally you concluded that history doesn't favour Judaism but here there is a kind of irony. I basically lived in countries such as Russia where there is a good deal of anti-Jewish sentiment. However, I always found it strange that Russian people would queue up for hours to take a look at Lenin's body in Red Square and they still revere him as a great political figure. Yet, Lenin was part Armenian, part Jewish. Later there was a big joke about all of this when the biggest anti-semitic in Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, found out he was of Jewish bloodline (after having proclaimed anti-semitism throughout his campaign).

I agree that there is a serious problem with Arabic immigrants in Europe, but I have a different take on it... First let me say that most of them are not middle-eastern but north-african, that's a significant difference, and most of them didn't flee their oppresive societies but were invited here by our governments in the 60's and 70's to do the dirty work nobody else wanted to do.

But i think the biggest problems we're facing have to do with criminality, exclusion, ghetto's...etc. Not so much with radical moslims or them wanting to take over Europe. We didn't have that much problems with the first generation immigrants who were a lot more religious than the younger ones, just because they stuck to their religion and didn't drink, fight, steel,... The young ones do adapt western culture (rap, hiphop, baseballcaps,...), they do drink and do drugs and go out....and they're the one we have problems with, although it's only a minority giving them a bad name. Also alot of them or unemployed and not very educated.

To be honest here, alot of Belgians are fed up with immigrants (25% voted for the far-right Vlaams Blok) and they are facing a lot of racism, I think thats the same in the surrounding countries. I can understand alot of that, since all of our big cities are having problems with gangs of young Arabs, but I don't know if that's the right answer... A few weeks ago a Dutch woman ran over a 16 year old Morrocon with her car after he stole her purse. Alot of Dutch expressed sympathy for her...while the Morrocons were shocked and called it a racist murder - this shows the division there...

As for the Jews...alot of them are nice people, though I despise the Israeli policies. Let's not forget that they also committed alot of terrorism before they were provided with an outstanding army (mostly against British targets). I think they're oversensitive though. Anytime any of them gets a punch in the face it has to be all over the news, shouting 'racism' and the return of the nazis.... while alot of other people also face voilent attacks daily without anyone talking about it....

Also you mentionned riots in Belgium over a Miss World contest, i think you got that wrong. Those riots were in Nigeria were dozens of people died when they wanted to stage the Miss World contest there. They then moved the contest to London. The then Miss Belgium Ann Van Elsen boycotted the election because of the death sentence a Nigerian girl got by a Islamic court because of adultery. She was one of the most vocal opponents of the contest. Pretty girl too :D http://www.ann-van-elsen.be/
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
Basically I've been against multiculturalism for years. Historically it has always been proven to be a cause of social division and disharmony. Even recent scientific studies in the U.S. showed that multicultural societies are less productive than homogeneous socieities (such as Japan where crime is very low).
Multiculturalism certainly failed in ancient Rome and finally led to the Romans becoming something of an ethnic minority within Italy itself with an army that became so feeble it had to rely on recruits from Gaul, Africa, Syria e.t.c. and still couldn't keep the huns and vandals out.
It seems strange to me that modern politicians don't look back to history and then learn from the mistakes other socieities made in the past.
Another point is the most advanced societies history reveals to us weren't specifically multicultural. The Greeks were a very tight community where foreigners lived amongst them but could never really penetrate the Greek political environment. Neither could anyone else but a Greek take part in the Olympic games. Yet the Greeks developed philosophy, democracy, medicine and the whole concept of universities and science.
In the case of immigration the fact is immigration changes society. The customs and beliefs of those who arrive in large numbers tend to overshadow the existing order and all sorts of problems arise. The Dutch realised this at some point which is why they decided they had to act and protect their own cultural identity.
My hope is that each E.U. member will value their own cultural heritage, language, outlook and peculiarities.


Jupiler said:
I agree that there is a serious problem with Arabic immigrants in Europe, but I have a different take on it... First let me say that most of them are not middle-eastern but north-african, that's a significant difference, and most of them didn't flee their oppresive societies but were invited here by our governments in the 60's and 70's to do the dirty work nobody else wanted to do.

But i think the biggest problems we're facing have to do with criminality, exclusion, ghetto's...etc. Not so much with radical moslims or them wanting to take over Europe. We didn't have that much problems with the first generation immigrants who were a lot more religious than the younger ones, just because they stuck to their religion and didn't drink, fight, steel,... The young ones do adapt western culture (rap, hiphop, baseballcaps,...), they do drink and do drugs and go out....and they're the one we have problems with, although it's only a minority giving them a bad name. Also alot of them or unemployed and not very educated.

To be honest here, alot of Belgians are fed up with immigrants (25% voted for the far-right Vlaams Blok) and they are facing a lot of racism, I think thats the same in the surrounding countries. I can understand alot of that, since all of our big cities are having problems with gangs of young Arabs, but I don't know if that's the right answer... A few weeks ago a Dutch woman ran over a 16 year old Morrocon with her car after he stole her purse. Alot of Dutch expressed sympathy for her...while the Morrocons were shocked and called it a racist murder - this shows the division there...

As for the Jews...alot of them are nice people, though I despise the Israeli policies. Let's not forget that they also committed alot of terrorism before they were provided with an outstanding army (mostly against British targets). I think they're oversensitive though. Anytime any of them gets a punch in the face it has to be all over the news, shouting 'racism' and the return of the nazis.... while alot of other people also face voilent attacks daily without anyone talking about it....

Also you mentionned riots in Belgium over a Miss World contest, i think you got that wrong. Those riots were in Nigeria were dozens of people died when they wanted to stage the Miss World contest there. They then moved the contest to London. The then Miss Belgium Ann Van Elsen boycotted the election because of the death sentence a Nigerian girl got by a Islamic court because of adultery. She was one of the most vocal opponents of the contest. Pretty girl too :D http://www.ann-van-elsen.be/
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
Bush impeachable :confused: YES !!!
‘The Torture Papers may well be the most important and damning set of documents exposing U.S. government lawlessness ever published. Each page tells the story of U.S. leaders consciously willing to ignore the fundamental protections that guarantee all of us our humanity. I fear for our future. Read these pages and weep for our country, the rule of law and victims of torture everywhere.’ Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights

‘With this superb collection of documents, we can begin to see the contours of our new post 9-11 world: from the reinterpretation of laws and treaties that once seemed immutable, to the pressure on soldiers and CIA officers in the field to set aside old rules in the hunt for useable intelligence. The papers speak for themselves and readers can decide whether the trade offs are worth it or not.’ Dana Priest, National Security Reporter, The Washington Post

‘Not since the Pentagon Papers have we seen such an important set of classified documents as the memoranda, reports and orders on detention and interrogation that began emerging into public view in the United States. Cambridge University press is serving an important need in providing these papers in one authoritative and well-organised collection.’ Mary Ellen O'Connell, William B. Saxbe Designated Professor of Law and Fellow of the Mershon Center for International Security, The Ohio State University

‘This is a commendable, timely, and useful collection of key documents. the material goes far in helping us to understand the logic and advice that led to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. From awful advice spring awful events.’ Phillippe Sands QC is a practising barrister in the Matrix Chambers and a professor of international law at University College London
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521853249
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
Yes, all of this is very worrying. The thing that horrifies me is that people suspected of Islamic terror connections are being picked up in foreign countries (such as Egypt) and tortured on behalf of the U.S. security services. By recruiting Egyptian and Syrian interrogaters, the U.S. Government believes it can't be held to account for abuses that take place outside of America. Just ship them overseas and pretend this absolves you from guilt.
Apparently, other governments are wrapped up in the same kind of conduct and Jack Straw recently made a stupid statement, stating that evidence obtained via torture shouldn't be ignored.
This whole idea that a democratic government should condone human rights abuses (similar to Saddam's Iraq) is a shocking revelation. Even the Gestapo and SS murderers were afforded a trial and treated appropriately as prisoners of war.


davidmc said:
Bush impeachable :confused: YES !!!
‘The Torture Papers may well be the most important and damning set of documents exposing U.S. government lawlessness ever published. Each page tells the story of U.S. leaders consciously willing to ignore the fundamental protections that guarantee all of us our humanity. I fear for our future. Read these pages and weep for our country, the rule of law and victims of torture everywhere.’ Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights

‘With this superb collection of documents, we can begin to see the contours of our new post 9-11 world: from the reinterpretation of laws and treaties that once seemed immutable, to the pressure on soldiers and CIA officers in the field to set aside old rules in the hunt for useable intelligence. The papers speak for themselves and readers can decide whether the trade offs are worth it or not.’ Dana Priest, National Security Reporter, The Washington Post

‘Not since the Pentagon Papers have we seen such an important set of classified documents as the memoranda, reports and orders on detention and interrogation that began emerging into public view in the United States. Cambridge University press is serving an important need in providing these papers in one authoritative and well-organised collection.’ Mary Ellen O'Connell, William B. Saxbe Designated Professor of Law and Fellow of the Mershon Center for International Security, The Ohio State University

‘This is a commendable, timely, and useful collection of key documents. the material goes far in helping us to understand the logic and advice that led to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. From awful advice spring awful events.’ Phillippe Sands QC is a practising barrister in the Matrix Chambers and a professor of international law at University College London
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521853249
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
I am not surprised at the USA contracting out the torture of suspects.
The torture being dispensed doesn't seem to be reaping any rewards.
After all Al Qaeda are still operating, Bin Laden is still at large and Mullah Omar and Co are operating with impunity in Afghanistan.

So apart from the moral question concerning torture and it's use by proxies of the USA - what intelligence has been gained from using torture ?
It seems that whatever information has been gleaned is either wrong, inaccurate, or out of date.

Which brings me on to my next thought - for all the apparent sophistication of the USA, they're still at sea.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
One moslem businessman apparently flew to a foreign country to pursue genuine business interests. He was picked up by security forces in that country and flown out to Egypt. He wasn't a terrorist but was denied a proper hearing or access to a lawyer. Finally he was tortured on behalf of the U.S. security services and beaten across the hands with cables till he confessed to whatever his interrogaters wanted to hear. This is the kind of information Jack Straw was claiming couldn't be ignored but it was false information obtained under duress.The man in question was innocent.
Even in cases where genuine terrorists have been picked up, I still wouldn't condone abuse of such nature. I knew people who fled Chile in the eighties who had been tortured to find sanctity over here, so I found Straw's comments to be quite shocking. No attrocity committed by terrorists should be allowed to undermine the norms of civilized behaviour, the importance of the Geneva Convention and respect for human rights.


limerickman said:
I am not surprised at the USA contracting out the torture of suspects.
The torture being dispensed doesn't seem to be reaping any rewards.
After all Al Qaeda are still operating, Bin Laden is still at large and Mullah Omar and Co are operating with impunity in Afghanistan.

So apart from the moral question concerning torture and it's use by proxies of the USA - what intelligence has been gained from using torture ?
It seems that whatever information has been gleaned is either wrong, inaccurate, or out of date.

Which brings me on to my next thought - for all the apparent sophistication of the USA, they're still at sea.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
Carrera said:
Yes, all of this is very worrying. The thing that horrifies me is that people suspected of Islamic terror connections are being picked up in foreign countries (such as Egypt) and tortured on behalf of the U.S. security services. By recruiting Egyptian and Syrian interrogaters, the U.S. Government believes it can't be held to account for abuses that take place outside of America. Just ship them overseas and pretend this absolves you from guilt.
Apparently, other governments are wrapped up in the same kind of conduct and Jack Straw recently made a stupid statement, stating that evidence obtained via torture shouldn't be ignored.
This whole idea that a democratic government should condone human rights abuses (similar to Saddam's Iraq) is a shocking revelation. Even the Gestapo and SS murderers were afforded a trial and treated appropriately as prisoners of war.
If there is justice, Bush/Gonzales/Ashcroft will pay for this high crime (torture) which has been shown to be ineffective anyway. Where are weisse luft & zapper to defend these republican approved practices :confused:
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
davidmc said:
If there is justice, Bush/Gonzales/Ashcroft will pay for this high crime (torture) which has been shown to be ineffective anyway. Where are weisse luft & zapper to defend these republican approved practices :confused:

They're probably off, reformatting and rewriting statistical information about deaths in Iraq.
(You remember when Zapper deliberately copied and pasted a report about deaths incorrectly - couldn't have been a mistake, he altered completely the text of the original article, he cited, without thinking that we'd read the article. Must think we're all stupid, or maybe that's how censorship works these days in the USA).
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
But moving the discussion along - you now know why the USA will not join the World Court because actions like Iraq would be indictable under the World Court conventions.
Bush would end up like General Ariel Sharon - who can only visit certain countries because of his war crimes.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
davidmc said:
If there is justice, Bush/Gonzales/Ashcroft will pay for this high crime (torture) which has been shown to be ineffective anyway. Where are weisse luft & zapper to defend these republican approved practices :confused:

Most users ever online was 1841, Yesterday at 04:40 PM.
limerickman, Scotty_Dog, dazzle96, hifi-hospital, newride, Kokoda, kaosalas, cycleman03, dice2833, ebola, simon london, Lt J.A. Moss, danielwilgocki, ilpirata, mcm, Ju2, Gwanoman, andhar, aeek, basso97, M.T., leegregory, howierart, Powerful Pete, northernsavage, Felt_Rider, Bikelux, dot, jspinney80, Officer dz/015, jhuskey, essendon93, siay, zapper, rcabpeters, musette, motorhommer, League, mikeg, andrello, moggie, WSSS, coolworx, ubernier, dome, jcjordan, rule62, bigtoewidefoot, imrr08, simon_uk, mikael17128, meehs, fit6days, Watoni, rob of the og, z22k, tayvens, castagnol, MountainPro, Tonto, Eira, jthom44, biker7, jabike, imoleno, dwatson, mickeyvoll, MCOSR
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
limerickman said:
But moving the discussion along - you now know why the USA will not join the World Court because actions like Iraq would be indictable under the World Court conventions.
Bush would end up like General Ariel Sharon - who can only visit certain countries because of his war crimes.
The U.S. is still delinquent on our U.N. due's although I beleive there are extinuating circumstances such as our disagreement w/ some unresolved issue on which we differ (not Iraq though). Concerning the WC, there is the disproportionate votes given out, no? e.g.-Small nations have the same power as big nations in the WC which would be giving up our sovereignty. Our courts are just & based on your's anyway so, what's the issue :confused:
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I suspect it would never have happened under Clinton, neither would Clinton have been so crazy as to put troops on the ground in Iraq.
My point has always been that Nazi war criminals who committed even greater attrocities than modern terrorists were treated according to civilized norms of POW conduct.
Myself I also find it unacceptable that POW's were hooded. I mean, seriously. Could you imagine the uproar there would have been if American troops had been broadcast on T.V. hooded and shackled?
I think Limerickman got it right earlier on when he said all of this will come to light and there will be quite a re-think in the U.S. At some point the Americans will choose an alternative direction.



davidmc said:
If there is justice, Bush/Gonzales/Ashcroft will pay for this high crime (torture) which has been shown to be ineffective anyway. Where are weisse luft & zapper to defend these republican approved practices :confused:
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
Carrera said:
Myself I also find it unacceptable that POW's were hooded. I mean, seriously. Could you imagine the uproar there would have been if American troops had been broadcast on T.V. hooded and shackled?
.
I think this is an interesting couple of sentences. You honestly think a hood and shackles are not acceptable? I would MUCH prefer to see American POWs in hoods and shackles than with a blade at their neck which has been the norm of late. There are very legit reasons to use a hood and shackles. Don't get me wrong, you will never find me defending any of the prison atrocities committed by certain Brits and Americans over there, but hoods and shackles? Come on... The vast majority of American troops captured were either killed, cared for by good-willed Iraqi civilians, or later rescued from perilous situations by coalition forces. To have instead seen them with a hood and shackles in a place where they received reasonable treatment would have been a god-send.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
The point is, though, that hooding prisoners of war goes against the Geneva Convention. Hooding Iraqi prisoners and depicting them on T.V. is a breach of human rights. Thus, American troops who might be so unfortunate as to be captured themselves run the risk of abuse as a result of their own conduct.
My own view is that if you treat POW's with dignity and compassion, the risks to your own soldiers are probably minimised. We have to remember Iraqi troops were ordered to defend their own country by their government so they weren't guilty of terrorism. They had no choice but to fight so they ought to have been treated with dignity when captured.

roadhog said:
I think this is an interesting couple of sentences. You honestly think a hood and shackles are not acceptable? I would MUCH prefer to see American POWs in hoods and shackles than with a blade at their neck which has been the norm of late. There are very legit reasons to use a hood and shackles. Don't get me wrong, you will never find me defending any of the prison atrocities committed by certain Brits and Americans over there, but hoods and shackles? Come on... The vast majority of American troops captured were either killed, cared for by good-willed Iraqi civilians, or later rescued from perilous situations by coalition forces. To have instead seen them with a hood and shackles in a place where they received reasonable treatment would have been a god-send.
 

Similar threads