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.

 

US Soldiers Told to 'Beat the (Expletive) Out of' Detainees

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Really have the Minutemen killed or hurt anyone? Nope they have not don't make judgments. They only have weapons just incase one of the illegal’s is armed.


So then whats the harm in some outside observers then? If the weapons are there purely for defense they shouldn't have an issue with ANYONE observing.

And as for the California law, you cannot be asked about your citizenship until you are arrested. You're sort of twisting the words, but i can see how it would help your argument to do that


[edit on 2-4-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 2-4-2005 by negativenihil]




posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
People wonder why there is a resistence in Iraq, and this is why. Not only do we kill 100,000+ civillians, not only do we tell them vote or starve, not only do we torture them and say no problem, we get pissed when they do the same thing, just not as much. Oh no, a civillian is killed, he wouldn't have been there if we hadn't invaded, and it was one guy, but I guess we get to kill 10,000 civillians for every one they kill. Then we torture a few thousand of them and get pissed when they torture one or two. I swear, republican hypocrits.

Rush Limbaugh said the Abu Gahrib(sp) wasn't torture, but the Terri Schiavo was. Yes, beating, burning, torturing people isn't torture, they aren't white, right Rush "the pill" Limbaugh?



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Simulacra, I agree with you. I often argue both sides myself for the sake of balance and unbias. While I find Neo conservative Christian nuts revolting, they sicken me as much as weak spinless liberals who care more about the trash of the world than others.

And I also agree that political correctness and bleeding heart liberalism has no place on the battle field. This is how you properly conduct a war, there are no half measures. If you have to bust a few skulls open to find out what the next enemy plan is, so be it. Thats war. War is not moral, and morality has no place in it. The weakness and lack of resolve to some people makes me a bit ill.

I opposed the whole invasion of Iraq because it was silly, wasteful, inefficient, and unecessary. But we are there now. Whats done is done. Whatever it takes to get us out quicker, do it.

We are stuck with Bush as president not because of corruption, but because of the lack of balls and fighting will of the left, the lack of fortitute of those who oppose him. The lack of reality that the left, the Democrats, has cost them and will continue to cost them. Until they wake up and smell the real real world and thus make better efforts to touch base with real people, instead of hiding their heads in their liberal utopian butts and continuing on a path of fantasy, the Neo Cons will continue to rule unopposed, and well end up with many more Iraq scenarios.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
icasualties.org... - Casualty figures listed by month.


I would visit cryptome.org... from what I'm told these reports are more accurate and actually have a run by of how each soldier died.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Well how do you define torture? Many people have their own view of what torture is. I'm not saying what happened at Abu Gharib was right I'm just saying others may see it as embarrassment and punishment. And I thought what happened with Terri was the right thing if someone wants to die then let them do so.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
POW's do have rights under international laws. We have no right to abuse our POW's. While many of you think it is perfectly alright for our gov. to tell our soldiers to abuse the POW's the soldeirs and our gov. can be held accountable under international law. While many of you seem to feel anything we do to others is ok, it is not. Our future POW's perhaps you or your children would not think so. The laws are there for a reason and we must and should honor them. I bet half of you who think it is ok to treat our POW's this way are the same ones saying a few years back that we were going there to save those poor people.

www.answers.com...

According to the Geneva Convention no prisoner of war could be forced to disclose to his captor any information other than his identity (i.e., his name and rank, but not his military unit, home town, or address of relatives). Every prisoner of war was entitled to adequate food and medical care and had the right to exchange correspondence and receive parcels. He was required to observe ordinary military discipline and courtesy, but he could attempt to escape at his own risk. Once recaptured, he was not to be punished for his attempt. Officers were to receive pay either according to the pay scale of their own country or to that of their captor, whichever was less; they could not be required to work. Enlisted men might be required to work for pay, but the nature and location of their work were not to expose them to danger, and in no case could they be required to perform work directly related to military operations. Camps were to be open to inspection by authorized representatives of a neutral power.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Goose-

That might be valid if we actually called our prisoners "POWs", however, a loophole has been found.

Just call them "Enemy Combatants" and BLAMO! No need to worry about the pesky Geneva Convention!



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well how do you define torture? Many people have their own view of what torture is.


...and clearly you do not feel what happened at Abu Ghraib was torture.

Would you feel the same if you or anyone in your family was subjected to the same sort of treatment?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Would you feel the same if you or anyone in your family was subjected to the same sort of treatment?


This is an infair comparision. The people of your family are not not trained to kill you. In short, we do these prisoners a favor by sparing their lives and not killing them in battle.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
This is an infair comparision. The people of your family are not not trained to kill you. In short, we do these prisoners a favor by sparing their lives and not killing them in battle.


We are doing them a favor by torturing them? raping them? humiliating them?

I dunno about you, but I'd rather have a bullet in my head



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by Simulacra
This is an infair comparision. The people of your family are not not trained to kill you. In short, we do these prisoners a favor by sparing their lives and not killing them in battle.


We are doing them a favor by torturing them? raping them? humiliating them?

I dunno about you, but I'd rather have a bullet in my head


Were not torturing them or raping them....



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
simulacra
They don't feel that way. They would rather die in battle than be subjected to humilation and torture. I agree with them. I would rather sacrifice my life in service to a 'noble' cause than become the source of an MP's amusement for years on end.

Torture definitions are being violated, there's no question about that.

The question is whether they should have the same rights as POWs, and I think they should. We're fighting the WAR on terrorism, and they are prisoners of that war. Prisoners of War. Pretty simple mathematics involved, but of course, the rules are bent when it suits our needs.

I think the whole situation has really blown up in our face. It's an embarassment to the American people, first and foremost, because we allowed it to happen. It's a huge black mark on the Armed Forces, whose duty it is to disobey illegal orders. The problem is, they were having fun with it! It's become a game to them, because their enemy has been dehumanized.

It speaks to psychological damage, and I hope both the troops and their prisoners get some help before they suffer psychotic breaks.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
There are children as young as 8 years old being held, and it has gone beyond torture, attack dogs are being let loose on the prisoners. Some of the prisoners have died in US custody many from beatings and torture. Many of these people were picked up for being a relative of a known terrorist, (any of you got a relative that might not be perfect, well in the war on terrorism you can be picked up and held for that reason) or were just there where an incident happened and the person in charge did not believe your reason for being there. It is one thing to say you hate terrorists but not all of these people are terrorists, many are not. Watch something besides the network news; try and find some news venue that gives you something other than USA propaganda. If you would like a link to news stories about what I have mentioned I will be happy to provide you with one.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   

The question is whether they should have the same rights as POWs, and I think they should. We're fighting the WAR on terrorism, and they are prisoners of that war. Prisoners of War. Pretty simple mathematics involved, but of course, the rules are bent when it suits our needs.


No they don't, because when the Geneva Conventions were written everyone had their little army in nice preppy uniforms that fought for one particular country and that follwed the same rules as you. Do you see optimist in uniforms? Do you see them following the Geneva convention? Do they fight for one particular bounty? Nape, Geneva Convention were not written for this type of thing. They are not POWS. if you captured a gang member would you call them a POW?

[edit on 5-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
WP et al,

Here are some quick quotes from the Geneva Convention 1949


“Article 3
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”


“Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”

So now that I have shown that the US actions in Gitmo are illegal lets move on.

“They are not POWS. if you captured a gang member would you call them a POW?“

No, I would call them a criminal and try them as such. Full rights and legal representation required.

So which is it to be WP?

I look forward to your response

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
simulacra
They don't feel that way. They would rather die in battle than be subjected to humilation and torture. I agree with them. I would rather sacrifice my life in service to a 'noble' cause than become the source of an MP's amusement for years on end.


But once again, this war doesn't operate based on terrorist needs, desires and wants. America doesn't barter with terrorist and that includes giving them the honor to die in battle. It's more humilating to be captured and imprisoned by your enemy than die by your enemy. In military terms, this is more desirable than simply putting a bullet through a persons skull. Dead men don't talk.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Simulcra,

Does the US even look where it is shooting?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Come on know, if you need to hurt someone to get some info whats so bad with that. I mean if its going to save lives than why not. Know killing them is something else you can put the hurt on someone without killing them. Who nows they might be holding out on some info. And there is more than one way to hurt someone.

I believe that if its necassary then its worth it.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
[edit on 5-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Demos,

Nice to see that you are ignoring two things,

A) the rule of law, but that is what we have come to expect from the US
B) the fact that info gained under torture is considered to be the least reliable by those in the business.

You just keep on with your internal justifications for the actions of GWB.

Cheers

BHR



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join