It's called "torture" Mr. Bush

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 15:55
VIEWED: 24944
PAGE 4 of 14

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:44 PM

It is not about whether someone "had it coming" or it was "payback" for some reason or another. It is about honor and about holding ourselves to a code of conduct and being accountable for infractions against others basic rights.

A soldier is a warrior. He has the obligation of protecting those that can not protect themselves, and to defend the rights of those unable to defend themselves. A soldier wages war against other soldiers, not civilians or non-combatants. Non combatants of course includes prisoners of war and detainees. That is not to say that the soldier should let his guard down or being drinking buddies w/ prisoners. A soldier has every right to defend themselves and their comrades, but not to overstep the bounds of human rights or the Geneva Conventions.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

HERO

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:50 PM

I can't put it better then everybody else has already done.

Here's my take, or as I call it, the correct opinion.

What happened to the Iraqi prisoners was a violation of international law. So what? The US is not a signatory to the International War Crimes court. There is no international remedy for the crimes abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

A nation is bound by treaty only so far as it chooses to be or is forced by other nations to be so bound, a fact Saddam has recently learned. The United States chooses to hold itself responsible for its conduct in war and its treaty obligations. The abuses committed by members of the US military will be remedied using the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The crimes will be investigated, soldiers will be charged and the guilty convicted and punished. If the involvement of higher officers and administration officials can be proven, they to will be tried and punished.

As for the alleged participation of "civilian contractors" they will be likewise charged in civilian courts for violations of Federal Laws regarding the treatment of prisoners.

It is important to note the following. We are the good guys. Hence the rule of law and transparency of process will govern all aspects of this investigation.

Bad guys don't play by these rules. When they commit similar or more heinous crimes, there are no repurcussions. Take a moment to consider the mass graves and as well as the inclusion of a torture chamber in every govt building in Iraq. These existed and were in use for twenty years with little if any comment by the press.

I am greatly disappointed in the conduct of our soldiers and I welcome the media scrutiny. Never the less the failure is one of local leadership rather then national policy. It is a criminal matter, not political, and should be handled as such.

H

WEERWOLF

Friday, May 7, 2004 5:38 PM

To Auraptor: I got a quote for you. You need to extrapolate a bit to the value of human life though to get my point:

"How we treat our dead is part of what makes us different from those that did the slaughtering."

Replace "our dead" with "the living" and no doubt you'll get my point.

Besides, you got Saddam, what else would you want to be degrading/torturing prisoners for? I thought the soldiers were there to guide the Iraqi people to democracy and a stable government. Now.

How d'you expect to get the Iraqi people to take you serious as a 'guiding force' if you give them the example as published in many newspapers? Isn't practices like those shown in the pictures the reason that Saddam was deigned unfit to run a country? Aren't the foreigners in Iraq supposed to show that things will be better once Saddam's away? Instead of the same-old same-old?

Pictures like that will prove to the Iraqis opposing the invasion that they were right all along: US and British (and maybe other countries' as well...) soldiers are rabid dogs that should be put down because they got no respect for the Iraqi people. I can hear the slogans already, people in the streets of Bagdad and Fallujah waving placards with those pictures.

Great going! Get those Iraqi people who were still unsure about whether the invasion was a good thing or not, over on the opposing side! Kill them in job lots! 'd Be easier than guiding them through a democratic process, for sure.

Yeah, great role modelling there. Huzzah!!!

"Besides, if I mess up, it's not likely you'll be able to yell at me."

DORAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 6:24 PM

I would have to argue that our enemy has dictated most of our conduct. After all they have tortured and killed civilians.. they have killed 3000+ civilians that that never offened them.. and now well, Osama has just upped the antie..

Osama bin Laden is offering rewards to those 'good' Muslims who manage to kill senior coalition figures? He has also said that any Muslim who captures a female coalition soldier can keep her as his sex slave. How many times have we heard denial of the Al Qaida connection in Iraq?

So is this next, are we going to see the USA capturing terrorist women to be used as sex slaves?

DORAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 6:27 PM

For the jihadists, at stake in the war against the infidels is the control of women. Western freedom means the end of women's mastery by men, and the end of dictatorial clerical control over all aspects of sexuality -- in dress, behavior, education, the arts..."

This is what it is really all about to Osama.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040507.shtml

KNIBBLET

Friday, May 7, 2004 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
I would have to argue that our enemy has dictated most of our conduct... they have killed 3000+ civilians that that never offened them..

Perhaps you were too busy slurping up all of Bush's lies, but it's been proven - strongly proven - that Al Quaida and Saddam DID NOT conspire, work together or otherwise cooperate with one another.

Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with the September 11th attacks.

*this just in* Saddam is also not responsible for the Chicago fire. (Mrs. O'Leary's cow has also been cleared).

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

SIGNYM

Friday, May 7, 2004 7:55 PM

Quote:
By the way, it's PRESIDENT Bush. You salute the rank, not the man.

DTT, Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake. I always thought they were saying "RESIDENT" Bush! I thought for sure that was his rank.

-----------------------

Quote:
However, I would like to know the publication where you found this article.

Ahh, Mugwai. Ever wanting to know who said what to discern the truth. I guess that's the difference between journalists and scientists. If I want to know what two plus two is, I do the math. You, on the other hand, would want to see the textbook where it originated!
However, FYI altho I don't know WHERE the article came from, I saw much of the same reporting on Asia Times.

-----------------------------

Quote:
All the anti George Bush crap is put forth many times without any real documentation mainly as a product of Bush hate

Without documentation???

Without documentation? What kind of docs are you looking for???

Quote:
they have killed 3000+ civilians that that never offened them

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Quote:
.. and now well, Osama has just upped the antie..

Did you mean "upped the ante" or "upped the auntie"?
heh heh heh

Quote:
Western freedom means the end of women's mastery by men, and the end of dictatorial clerical control over all aspects of sexuality -- in dress, behavior, education, the arts...

I suppose you never listened to the far religious right here in the good-old USA?

---------------------------

Quote:
The US is not a signatory to the International War Crimes court

Hero, we DID sign the "Geneva Convention"?

Quote:
As for the alleged participation of "civilian contractors" they will be likewise charged in civilian courts for violations of Federal Laws regarding the treatment of prisoners.

There is at this point NO LAW concerning CIA contractor's actions in foreign countries. The law only covers military contractors.

Quote:
It is important to note the following. We are the good guys

How many bad things do you have to do before you ARE a "bad guy"? Or are we "good guys" because our MOTIVES are good, even if our MEANS are fatal? Could never figure that one out, so any help is appreciated.

MAUGWAI

Friday, May 7, 2004 8:35 PM

SIGNYM, please stop making your responses so condescending and personal. If you have a contribution to the conversation, try to do it in a respectful fashion. Most of the people who disagree here do it with respect for each others' opinion. Try to do the same, and we will respect your opinion as well.

Quote:
Ahh, Mugwai. Ever wanting to know who said what to discern the truth. I guess that's the difference between journalists and scientists. If I want to know what two plus two is, I do the math. You, on the other hand, would want to see the textbook where it originated!

Perhaps that's my journalistic background, to always try to see both sides of the issue. I do that by obtaining as many facts as possible and determining whether or not the source of those facts is reliable. Do scientists not use that method?

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

SIGNYM

Friday, May 7, 2004 9:08 PM

You're right, I was condescending and I'm sorry and I edited my post to be respectful. Well, I HOPE it's respectful by now!

The answer to your question is ... no, scientists do not (or, at least they shouldn't!) determine the truth by the the reliability of the source. If they do... and there are too many examples where this has happened... then they don't understand the scientific method.

What a scientist does (or should do) is observe the facts, form a hypothesis to explain "How is this happening?" consistent with the facts, and then try to test the hypothesis to see if can be disproven. (A principle of the scientific method is that you can never prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove. If you want to know more, I'll explain later.)

You can test your hypothesis several different ways. The best way is to perform an experiment, and then have other scientists try to repeat the results. However, if we're dealing with something like mass psychology it's a little difficult to experiement! So you try to predict something based on your hypothesis (we will go to war) and see whether you have predicted properly. If not, it's back to the drawing board!

I'll give you a couple of examples of how scientists did NOT follow the scientific method, but in fact looked to "authority" for the answer, and got it all wrong:

Plate tectonics (drifting) was actually hypothesized by Wegener in 1915. His idea was laughed out of existance by European and North American authorities of the day.

H. pylori (bacteria) was originallly proposed as the causative agent of peptic ulcers by Dr Marshall (Australia) about 1980. However, because his paper didn't meet with American gastroenterology "expert" opinion, it took more than a decade for medicine to catch up with the facts.

In both cases, the "authorities" were wrong. Some simple experiments could have easily established the facts.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, May 7, 2004 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Talvin:
To GHOULMAN:

Because we are a community, one that you have clearly disparaged and do not consider yourself part of. If you feel this is so important, go start your own. "Browncoats against Bush" if you like, or whatever.

This community has nothing to do with "engine properties" and a great deal to do with support and friendship. Your reply to my post shows that your main interest is in starting a fight, and that means you do not belong here.

Now leave.

"I give up. I admit it. I'm a Browncoat."

Although I disagree with the manner of GhoulMans first post I definitely support the discussions of politics on this board. If it doesn't suit you fancy then don't post to the threads, don't read them and don't harass those who do.

Oh, and by the way, 'Tash and I seem to support Ghoulman. So then, wouldn't that make him belong after all?

And if this community has nothing to do with Serenity's engine properties (eg Firefly related things) then why even call it a Firefly community. It should then just be the stuff community. You might note that there is at least one other thread going right now that deals with the matter of Serenity's engine or engines in the FF 'verse in general.

But as have been basically said before, there is only so much Firefly that we can talk about since the content related to it is quite limited. And what do intelligent people do when faced with such things? They discuss politics, religion, etc. Those that don't want discuss something don't. Perhaps you should join that particular camp when it comes to these things and not let it bother you so much as the only thing you will succeed in doing is raising your blood pressure.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE