Gitmo abuse
POSTED BY: BarnStormer
UPDATED: Friday, June 24, 2005 06:00
VIEWED: 8401
PAGE 3 of 5
If a beheading only garnered "30 seconds" of news, there wouldn't have been a rash of beheadings.
Same with suicide bombings. These are effective acts of terror because the world reacts with horror, all the papers put it in the headlines, leaders around the globe condemn the action...that's how "terror" works. Kinda why they CALL it terror, get it?
The Bush Administration's abuse of those they choose to call "foreign combatants," or "suspected terrorists" goes far beyond the shameful actions of a few low-end grunts at Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo.
We hold also ship our "suspects" to other countries to be tortured at our request. This is documented.
At Guatanamo, we detain human beings without due process, without charging them, without necessarily any EVIDENCE, for years on end, in a state of hopeless limbo.
Then, we expect the other nations to listen to *us* as if we have a shred or moral authority??
You reactionary U.S.-Right-All-Time folks makes me sick. Stop blaming the media for *trying* to do their job, and trying to keep this nation and its leaders honest. The only treason here is the treasonous contempt our current leadership shows to the Geneva Convention, to our men in uniform who are trying to serve honorably, and to the trust and faith of the American people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why? Or, let me rephrase that- What about Bush's famous "Bring 'em on"? That sounded like incitement to me, and to a lot of people in the Armed Forces. Don't we hold the White House to the same standards as the press?Quote:Why? Doesn't the White House have a duty, staffers and intelligence agents to do some basic fact-checking? Since the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DIA all work for the Federal government the White House's resources are far superior to the press', and the only reason to echo this particular line is to whip the press for perceived negative reporting.
Huge difference, it wasn't done to support the enemy. Stupid, I'll agree. Also as I said several times...DELIBERATE, it has to be deliberate
Quote:
Agree and disagree with you here. People in government watched television to get info about the war, despite having the military there. Like it or not the press can be places and have info the government isn't and doesn't have. But I agree they should have more intel, of course if intel services hadn't been gutted we might.
The echo chamber, was media, once again, taking a flawed story and repeating over and over and over without checking the facts.Quote:
And the fact that someone high up in the Administration revealed an undercover CIA agent's name to the press, and that a (right wing) reporter chose to publish it, is.....?
Was it done to deliberately hurt the US or just to settle a score? To hurt the US, treason, to settle a score, criminal. Novak isn't a reporter he's a commentator/anyalist, there's a difference. Either way someone should pay for the release of the name. Novak and or the person who gave him the info.Quote:
I think we'd better parse this pretty carefully. When you talk about helping the enemy and hurting the US, that's a pretty broad brush. Who is the enemy? Who is the US? Let me give you one example- terrorists want to disrupt our economic activity by reducing confidence in our markets. A newpaper reports that there is a serious trading scam going on that the SEC doesn't seem to be addressing. The article could be construed as deliberately helping the enemy and hurting the US. Would you muzzle the article? If yes- why? If no- why not?
Nope, what's the reason for printing the story? Can a direct connection be made between the terroists and the paper? If it can be shown it were a coordinated act, yes, muzzle it, if not, no.
Opus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In WW2 Nazi's fighting, out of uniform, were lined up and shot, films of it being done were taken and shown. The Geneva convention doesn't cover soldiers fighting out of uniform.
It's a war, they don't have the right to civilian courts, and being out of uniform, military ones either.
YOUR reactionary...US is always wrong...makes me sick.
The media is biased, accept it. All I ask is that they be accurate.
Opus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL. All you ask is that the rest of the world's media feed you lies that resemble those fed you by the propaganda organ that is Fox News.
My last post on this thread.
Good luck to you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"FIRE"!!! I yelled in a crowded theatre at a 10.25PM showing of Lava Girl and Shark Boy... Nah, I am not responsible for killing a mere 10% of the kids in the theatre in the mad rush to exit the theatre and somehow gotten trampled to death. I "thought" there was something in the midst of combusting in the auditorium, I really did.
Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
LOL. All you ask is that the rest of the world's media feed you lies that resemble those fed you by the propaganda organ that is Fox News.
My last post on this thread.
Good luck to you.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Opus, there is a law on the books that say that outing a CIA officer is treason.
What you seem to have settled on, in the end of your post, is that you would not only be looking for deliberation, you would also be looking for conspiracy. Correct?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Intent, is the key. Some idiot could release information, out of sheer stupidity, or do something that could harm the country out of ignorance, that would not be treason.
Conspiricy, not necessarily, one person could act alone to harm the country. But in the example you stated, theoretically someone could have an agenda, but without a conspiricy, or the editor blabbing his/her supposed reason for running the piece, you couldn't prove anything. I don't believe just because the story may in some way further the terrorists plans it's automatically treason or should be censored. If it was a story that could or did cause real harm, not questioning it's publication would be stupid.
Regarding the release of the CIA operatives name being treason, if that's the law, fine, they should be charged with treason. No qualms there.
opus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lynch- The information was specifically told to three reporters by someone high up in the Administration. Libby (Cheney's top aide) is a chief suspect. Of the three, only the supposedly "patriotic" conservative, Novak, reported the story.
Why did he publish her name? If he laready "knew" she was an undercover officer, why did he choose that particualr moment to reveal it? And whether he already knew or not, why did he choose to publish it? Surely he or his editors must have known it was against the law.
So now everybody knows that Plame was an undercover CIA officer, and she and all of her contacts were potentially placed in danger. The issue has not evaporated, but it being interminably investigated by the Justice Department. So far, the only people who have been "punished" were the two reporters who refused to publish Plame's name! Their case- having to do with protecting confidential sources- was just decided in Appeals Court two months ago or so.
Since the Democrats don't have majority, and don't have committee chairs, they can't scream for much of anything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nearly all were non-coms fleeing the fighting who were SOLD by warlords to the US for the $2500 bounty.
The Geneva convention doesn't cover soldiers fighting out of uniform.
If they were combatants fighting in the field and captured in the act by US soldiers you might have a point. But you don't.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Recent news also suggests that the U.S. is holding a lot of juveniles at Gitmo.
World humanitarian organizations report that U.S. being uncooperative in identifying and giving an accurate count of how many of these "presumed guilty" are, in fact, just kids.
Are some of these juveniles real combatants?
With a surity, some are.
Some could even be vicious thugs.
However, I'm sure being left to rot in Gitmo has made them see the light. I'm sure they're now going to go home and spread LOVE about America...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME