It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Soldiers: Beware, you are only a hero if you are a right wing christian

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
John McCain did the same thing when he was a pow and you people wanted to elect him president. Hypocrites.



(Choke, gasp) Now that is too silly--it has to be sarcasm. John McCain was flying a mission when he was shot down and captured...he didn't desert his post and go looking to pal up with the NVA. Utter history failure.




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
what did these 5 do that make the 5 of the most dangerous terrorists around???

Watch the video.
Mass murder and terrorism. And now they'll do it again. Even Obama agrees.
Obama Admits Freed Terrorists ABSOLUTELY Could Return to Terrorism

Wanted by the International Criminal Court
Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Shiites.

So Obama released prisoners who are wanted by international courts.
He needs to answer for that crime.

How bad were the released terrorists?

The five Taliban prisoners at Gitmo released by Barack Obama were identified today.

** Mohammed Fazl – commanded the main force fighting the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in 2001, and served as chief of army staff under the Taliban regime. Fazl slaughtered thousands of Shiites.

** Mullah Norullah Noori - served as governor of Balkh province in the Taliban regime and played some role in coordinating the fight against the Northern Alliance.

** Mohammed Nabi Omari – the Taliban’s chief of communications and helped al Qaeda members escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

** Khairullah Khairkhwa – most prominent position was as governor of Herat province from 1999 to 2001, and he was alleged to have been “directly associated” with Osama bin Laden.

** Abdul Haq Wasiq – deputy chief of the Taliban regime’s intelligence service. His cousin was head of the service.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Thanks you and thank you so much for that, I wish you had made an independent thread to cover this terrorist and analyze them individually.

Because obviously is people that still do not understand what kind of people we are dealing with.

This are well know dangerous terrorist even wanted in their own countries courts.

The irony.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Then why no hearing, why no trial? Isn't due process one of the hallmarks of what it means to be American, or no?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Well now that they are in the hands of the countries they are coming from, perhaps they will prosecute them?,

I think not. What you think.

I imagine that the same reason US didn't prosecute them their own will not either, repercussions is the key here.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

How should Obama be held accountable, with a trial or hearing maybe? Your link even included "alleged", or otherwise known as unproven.

So when were done in Afghanistan are these people gonna be held for life without trial?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Isn't due process one of the hallmarks of what it means to be American, or no?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Then why no hearing, why no trial?

Prisoners of War are not considered criminals. They are prisoners of war. The left wants to treat them like criminals and have court hearings. The right says they are prisoners of war and, according to the law, they are not to be put on trial. Technically the GITMO detainees are not 'prisoners of war'. They are unlawful combatants. But that still doesn't put them into 'criminal' territory so they don't get trials. (unless you are Eric Holder and you want your NY based law firm to get the contracts and the tax payer $$$ so you push for 'trials').

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Prisoners of War

The Bush administration announced its policy on captives from Afghanistan in February 2002. It drew a theoretical distinction between al-Qaeda fighters and members of the Taliban forces. Since al-Qaeda was a non-State group, the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda was outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. By contrast, since the Taliban were the de facto armed forces of Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions did apply to the conflict between the United States and the Taliban. However, according to the White House, the Taliban forces did not meet the criteria set out in the Third Geneva Convention for attaining POW status. Therefore, in practice, all detainees from Afghanistan were “unlawful combatants” who did not deserve the privileges of prisoners of war.

Nevertheless, the White House proclaimed, the prisoners would receive “many POW privileges as a matter of policy.” Included in the listed privileges which would be extended detainees held at Guantanamo were appropriate Muslim meals, opportunities to worship and correspond and send mail, subject, of course, to the security needs of the facility and the U.S. government. This limitation on the right of correspondence is permitted by Article 76 of the Convention.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Yes, LDragonfire, but you know that the anti patriot act took care of that right, even we American citizens are in danger of losing our due process.

Bush made sure of that, Obama just goes along with it.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
How should Obama be held accountable, with a trial or hearing maybe?

He broke the law. The law that he himself signed into law. And this breaks his oath of office. Yes .. there should be an investigation and he should be held accountable ... not get off because he's a POTUS.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
More on the Due process.

The Patriot Act: Probable Cause and Due Process


Both liberal and conservative groups alike have criticized the U.S. Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, because they say it violates probable cause and due process rights protected by the Constitution of the United States.
The Patriot Act significantly expanded the power of U.S. law enforcement by giving them unprecedented authority to track and follow terrorists. The act also gave terrorism investigators access to evidence-gathering tools that agents in criminal inquiries have been able to use for years, but some see these powers as being unconsitutional.

All agree that the government must be able to protect its citizens from terrorism, but the issue is how to do that without eroding the civil liberties of all citizens.


crime.about.com...

Sadly Obama has go along with it and even killed Americans under the patriot act in foreign lands, still he seems to leave terrorist alone and even grant them freedom.

edit on 4-6-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
At this time I see a few level-minded individuals, the rest are confused.

As long as people continue to ignore the root cause, we will be stuck arguing about petty minor insignificant things which are well placed distractions.

The Root Cause = Retarded war for the pscychopath elite.

The outcome of that was a whole lot of USA war-crimes, broken souls, PTSD, ignorance of these poor kids as they return from their fabricated journey.

Yes , this person is a deserter and broke his combat and officially by law he stands to the consequences of said law by said military...it's really bad now with black sites and admitted torturing in intense detail.

So yeah let's start a war on something that we caused (false flag 9/11 no hiding behind the truth) and then blame all the foot soldiers we sent. Let's weep selectively, if you died knowing the truth you are a traitor and how dare you get the # out of dodge, but if you blindly followed orders for corrupt people then your life is worth more I guess...?

This stuff is all so messed up and meant to keep us divided.

I must say though that the military cult in the form of back scratching is rather disturbing in this thread. As former service members you should be questioning why you were there, not why this one idiot was made national news.

We are all being played and arguing over pawns...

I have two family members who shed blood sweat and tears over there fighting this # so don't assume please...

I know what I know.

edit on 6/4/2014 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
This is interesting, I wonder why Obama has not pursue his bill reform of the the Military Commissions Act of 2009, to prosecute the detainees in Gitzmo.


On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which was included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). MCA 2009 is the third attempt at creating a military commissions system. The new reforms to the system include some improvements over the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the November 12, 2001 Military Order issued by President Bush which first created a military commissions system after September 11. MCA 2009 however, still fails to provide many of the fundamental elements of a fair trial found in federal civilian courts and a court martial system. For example, the rules permit the admission of coerced testimony obtained at the point of capture; they use an overbroad definition of who can be tried before military commissions that includes juveniles and those not even engaged in hostilities; and they permit defendants to be tried ex-post facto for conduct not considered to constitute a war crime at the time it was committed. 2009 Military Commissions Act On April 27, 2010, the Department of Defense, after a long delay, finally released new rules governing the military commission proceedings


Perhaps is an issue to the entire military commission bill that Obama has chosen to by pass.

www.humanrightsfirst.org...
edit on 4-6-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: luciddream

That's one hell of an assumption.

WE DONT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORIST!!!


Except when it suits you then you give them state of the art weapons.....l



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Corruption Exposed

Brain washing is hardto overcome so be easy on the poor little drones.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: kruphix



It's just sad that people are so brainwashed that they think nothing of saying "kill the terrorists" when referring to people who are just living in their own country fighting against an occupying force.


Well in that case...

May you live out your days under Taliban rule....


Last time I checked the taliban had no navy, it has no airforce and even before the war had no projection capabilty.

So to say if you dont fight them in afganistan they will rule the USA? Its pure male cow feces.

As for the people of afghanistan? Dont see how its the USA or allies problem.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Are we sure they were dangerous terrorists,

Yes.



Then why were they not put on trial and then imprisoned legaly in a normal supermax jail to rot forever.

Now im sure they did deserve prison.

But it should have been done right with a trial.

If they were convicted im sure obama would have had a tougher time releasing them.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: LDragonFire


Do the right wing not believe in due process or rule of law? Or can they not prove there case?


And yet again you are incorrect.

Where does the US legal system and due process show any placement to captured military personnel?


Only if POW

The usa should mot have made up a pathetic thrid catogory of enemy combatent that most the world thinks is bs.

If you have kept to the simple criminal or pow system the US gov and military would not be under so much flak. Of they were pow no one could complain on there indeffinate detention and if convicted criminal in a real prison obama would not have been able to pull this stund.

You shot yourselfs in the foot makeing up a silly third catogary so you could toture them.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

He could have, just read my last post, I mean Obama could have prosecuted them under his reform of the Military Commissions Act of 2009, but he didn't.

Then again we most blame the anti patriot act for what happen to begin with and the war on terror.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Then why no hearing, why no trial?

Prisoners of War are not considered criminals. They are prisoners of war. The left wants to treat them like criminals and have court hearings. The right says they are prisoners of war and, according to the law, they are not to be put on trial. Technically the GITMO detainees are not 'prisoners of war'. They are unlawful combatants. But that still doesn't put them into 'criminal' territory so they don't get trials. (unless you are Eric Holder and you want your NY based law firm to get the contracts and the tax payer $$$ so you push for 'trials').

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Prisoners of War

The Bush administration announced its policy on captives from Afghanistan in February 2002. It drew a theoretical distinction between al-Qaeda fighters and members of the Taliban forces. Since al-Qaeda was a non-State group, the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda was outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. By contrast, since the Taliban were the de facto armed forces of Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions did apply to the conflict between the United States and the Taliban. However, according to the White House, the Taliban forces did not meet the criteria set out in the Third Geneva Convention for attaining POW status. Therefore, in practice, all detainees from Afghanistan were “unlawful combatants” who did not deserve the privileges of prisoners of war.

Nevertheless, the White House proclaimed, the prisoners would receive “many POW privileges as a matter of policy.” Included in the listed privileges which would be extended detainees held at Guantanamo were appropriate Muslim meals, opportunities to worship and correspond and send mail, subject, of course, to the security needs of the facility and the U.S. government. This limitation on the right of correspondence is permitted by Article 76 of the Convention.




Ok il make my own catogary up too.

It called "brain washed american"

Basicaly I can go round kidnapping americans round the world, toture them and hold them indeffinatly. Cause they are not pow or criminals they have no rights,

Sound fair?

No it doesnt.

And why the US should not just invent its own stupid terms.

Criminal or POW should be the only options,




top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join