Prison inmates committing suicide now an act of warfare on the US
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Friday, June 23, 2006 10:01
VIEWED: 9568
PAGE 4 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tell you what- I'll roll you around and sit on you while you're stuffed head-first into a sleeping bag until you suffocate. That will end the discussion nicely.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
Hmm. I thought I was discussing this with Citizen. Let me check... Yep.
But anyway. Let's step back a bit and look at the large scale picture.
Almost all lawful combatants in both Afghanistan and Iraq captured by coalition forces (that would be uniformed regular forces and resistance fighters engaged in regular combat) have been released and are back home. Some who are suspected or identified terrorists are being held. In cases where captives were mistreated, folks have gone to jail.
Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed. Since the establishment of the new Iraqi army, most Iraqi soldiers captured have also been tortured and executed. This is not isolated cases, it is policy.
Do you see any difference at all between these two scenarios? A simple Yes or No will do.
"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No.
Please explain the difference.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Like you said Mal tortured and killed the henchman when he kicked him through the engine on the other thread, huh?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed.
That guy was going to kill Mal & crew as soon as he could, by his own free admission!
Defense does not equal torture.
Um...unless you defend yourself, then torture...then you're torturing.
You make it so complicated, Geezer! Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No.
Please explain the difference.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
Sure. Scenario one is...We don't agree and I take you prisoner. 999 times out of 1000 I then let you go. If I don't release you my forces are required to treat you in a relatively humane manner. If they don't they go to jail.
Scenario two is...We don't agree and I take you prisoner. 999 times out of 1000 I torture you and cut your head off with a dull knife. My boss says "Good job. Keep it up." I do.
Any clearer now?
I'm afraid that if you can't differentiate between these two scenarios, I can do nothing but suggest that you seek medical attention, 'cause you're one sick puppy.
"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How about I kill your entire family in a bombing raid first?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Tell you what. You let your big dog bark at me, and then I'll cut your head off with a dull knife, and then we'll talk equivalancies.
Quote:Yeah Signy, this IS NOT a public forum and YOU have no rights to speak in it, so shut the hell up.
Hmm. I thought I was discussing this with Citizen. Let me check... Yep.
.Quote:So you want the 'unlawful combatants' to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it?
Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed. Since the establishment of the new Iraqi army, most Iraqi soldiers captured have also been tortured and executed. This is not isolated cases, it is policy.
If someone is bound by the Geneva Convention they're also protected by it, so I'd of thought that's the last thing the Bush administration wants.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:So you want the 'unlawful combatants' to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed. Since the establishment of the new Iraqi army, most Iraqi soldiers captured have also been tortured and executed. This is not isolated cases, it is policy.
If someone is bound by the Geneva Convention they're also protected by it, so I'd of thought that's the last thing the Bush administration wants.
No. My remark, which you took out of context, was not meant to propose anything relating to the Geneva convention, as you know very well. It was part of a "compare and contrast" set of scenarios reflecting Coalition and insurgent tactics and policies.
Since that's come up, do you see any difference between scenarios One and Two that I described above?
BTW. I'm having trouble linking with FFF.net (maybe you are too?) so I'm gonna drop out for a while and pick this up later.
"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trouble here too. But I'm patient.
First of all, I question your scenario. Just out of curiosity Geezer: Have we ever taken "lawful combatants" prisoner in our war on terrorists? Considering that the Taliban was not recognized as the lawful government of Afghanistan (except by the UAE, to which we almost entrusted our port security... but that's another story) by definition I don't think there were any lawful combatants in that war. And while I suppose that Saddam's army consisted of lawful combatants, I'm not aware that we took any of them prisoner. It seems to me that all of our prisoners in Gitmo and most of them in Abu Ghraib are either "unlawful combatants", innocent bystanders (oops), and petty criminals. So feel free to let me know how we treated that minor percentage (if any) of our lawful combatant prisoners.
As far as I know, according to you the rest are fair game.
www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Considering the number of Afghan and Iraqi combatants we captured, the 800 or so sent to Guantanamo because we either knew they were terrorists or needed to make sure doesn't seem that excessive.
Ok, so here's what I'm reading, tell me if I'm wrong:
These people were picked up and according to the US government (which you can call liars if you'd like) in the five years since then they have not even been told why.
So they're being held without trial, as we all know, but they are not, however, guilty by suspicion since that would imply that they are suspected of something, which as far as we know isn't true. They have not been accused of being terrorists, they have not been accused of being ANYTHING, they have not been accused of acting against this counrty or breaking any law, they have not been accused, charged, or even given subtle hints as to why they are there.
As far as they or the American people know they are not even suspected of doing anything, because then they would have been charged with that thing, they are instead suspected of being the kind of person who might have done something or might do something.
-
You say that we knew they were terrorists or needed to make sure, if we knew why won’t we tell how we knew, and if we needed to make sure exactly how long does that take?
Will we be sure when they die of old age perhaps, because if we make as much progress in the next five as we have in the last five those who don't kill themselves will still be there, and by that point there probably won't be to much evidence to convict or exonerate them left around.
If we don't have enough evidence to even charge them with anything after five years of searching for it how long do we wait before we stop looking?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:How about I kill your entire family in a bombing raid first?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Tell you what. You let your big dog bark at me, and then I'll cut your head off with a dull knife, and then we'll talk equivalancies.
You know what the defense lawyers said about the US soldiers who killed unarmed civilians? They said that the soldiers did not know they were killing civilians because they simply went door to door throwing grenades in houses, since they didn't bother to find out who was in the houses, the defense argues, they can't be blamed for the fact that the people living in the houses, whom they killed, were unarmed civilians.
I wonder if the terrorists should be let off every time they didn't know who was in the building they bombed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We're back to: What we do-good.
Originally posted by christhecynic:
the soldiers did not know they were killing civilians because they simply went door to door throwing grenades in houses, since they didn't bother to find out who was in the houses, the defense argues, they can't be blamed for the fact that the people living in the houses, whom they killed, were unarmed civilians.
What they do-bad.
War is so simple.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME