Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida

We are over there to bring these people freedom and democracy, right? I have a problem with humiliating, demeaning, and sleep deprivation of people who have been detained, not charged, and not given a hearing. Does anyone else see a problem with that? In my opinion, those are all forms of torture, and hopefully would not be condoned in our country. Why should it be condoned elsewhere? It remains to be seen what was actually done to these people, but we need to find out for our own sake. I don't want these things to be done in my name. Surely our country is better than that.

I have to ask one question. Who do you think is being detained in Abu Ghraib prison? Last I heard it was captured insurgents. It was some of the people behind these bombings. People have got to learn the difference between these people and what we call prisoners. Technically under international law insurgents can be shot. If the information obtained helps to prevent one bombing or saves one life I have no problem with it at all. These are not people who didn't pay a parking ticket or got picked up for smoking pot.

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Please click on the link to Seymour Hershs' ACLU speech.

Hold on a sec....

Sorry, I just couldn't hold back when you were inferring that the ACLU was behind some actual fair reporting. This is hear-say, as in gossip, unless someone comes forward with some actual evidence. I saw a video of Elvis in the Oval Office today too, but can I tell you about something I heard from someone else and expect you to believe me?

Many people will fight you ... The ACLU is there solely to fight for your rights pal. Even in your stated ignorance they will protect your rights - at no cost to you. Now what in Elvis's name is wrong with that? Save your derisive smiley laughs for the Abu Ghraib gang.

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Many people will fight you ... The ACLU is there solely to fight for your rights pal. Even in your stated ignorance they will protect your rights - at no cost to you. Now what in Elvis's name is wrong with that? Save your derisive smiley laughs for the Abu Ghraib gang.

The ACLU is there to further an agenda and that is it plain and simple. If your cause or case is in line with their agenda then sometimes they will help. If you cause or case isn't in line with their agenda they will be more than happy to help bury you.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida

We are over there to bring these people freedom and democracy, right? I have a problem with humiliating, demeaning, and sleep deprivation of people who have been detained, not charged, and not given a hearing. Does anyone else see a problem with that? In my opinion, those are all forms of torture, and hopefully would not be condoned in our country. Why should it be condoned elsewhere? It remains to be seen what was actually done to these people, but we need to find out for our own sake. I don't want these things to be done in my name. Surely our country is better than that.

Technically under international law insurgents can be shot. If the information obtained helps to prevent one bombing or saves one life I have no problem with it at all. These are not people who didn't pay a parking ticket or got picked up for smoking pot.

You are incorrect. We are not over there to bring democracy and freedom. We are over there to transfer the treasury to Halliburton and Bechtel. We are over there to privatize a nation as an experiment in neocon business values. We are over there to make a few select friends of Bush very, very rich. When was the "mission accomplished"? Do you realise that the public there wants us out NOW and that we have done little to nothing to rebuild their lives let alone their infrastructure? Do you realise that the chosen constitution incorporates Islam as a national religion which will require woman to remain second class citizens. Democracy my eye.

And show your authority for your remark that international law allows us to shoot alleged insurgents. Also, show your authority for whatever definition you would apply to the term "insurgent".

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Many people will fight you ... The ACLU is there solely to fight for your rights pal. Even in your stated ignorance they will protect your rights - at no cost to you. Now what in Elvis's name is wrong with that? Save your derisive smiley laughs for the Abu Ghraib gang.

The ACLU is there to further an agenda and that is it plain and simple. If your cause or case is in line with their agenda then sometimes they will help. If you cause or case isn't in line with their agenda they will be more than happy to help bury you.

The ACLU's agenda, since you have not state it I will for you, is to protect the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution a.k.a. the Bill of Rights. The ACLU is a non-profit group which serves no other purpose than to ensure that government does not supress or take away anyone's rights as expressed in the Bill of Rights. If you support the govt. taking away the rights of anyone or any group then you will be in opposition to the ACLU. It's really as simple as that. There is no other motivation in what the ACLU does. That is the beauty of the ACLU. So quit disparaging something so beautiful with your ignorance. 'kay?

The ACLU's agenda is far-reaching, indeed.
The ACLU's agenda reaches back to the very early days of its creation: to further the goals and set agenda's of its Communist/Socialist founders.

The ACLU today is doing nothing but furthering its own socialist agenda, and that is to destroy the very fabric of American society.




seekerof

[edit on 30-9-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
The ACLU's agenda is far-reaching, indeed.
The ACLU's agenda reaches back to the very early days of its creation: to further the goals and set agenda's of its Communist/Socialist founders.

The ACLU today is doing nothing but furthering its own socialist agenda, and that is to destroy the very fabric of American society.
seekerof
[edit on 30-9-2005 by Seekerof]

You are a fool.

I have to ask one question. Who do you think is being detained in Abu Ghraib prison? Last I heard it was captured insurgents. It was some of the people behind these bombings. People have got to learn the difference between these people and what we call prisoners. Technically under international law insurgents can be shot. If the information obtained helps to prevent one bombing or saves one life I have no problem with it at all. These are not people who didn't pay a parking ticket or got picked up for smoking pot.

PLEASE show us all where in international law it is OK to shoot supposed insurgents.

Do you even know what the word means?

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

The people fighting against America, and the other occupiers are NOT insurgents.

There is not one single insurgent in Iraq until there is an established government, which there is not.

Until then they are partisans.

If you don't like that term call them Freedom Fighters.

Bush's stated intentions do not change the fact that Iraq was invaded, and occupied against international law including the UN Charter.

And no, resolution 1441 did not give us authorization to invade....

Originally posted by ArchAngel

PLEASE show us all where in international law it is OK to shoot supposed insurgents.

Do you even know what the word means?

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

The people fighting against America, and the other occupiers are NOT insurgents.

There is not one single insurgent in Iraq until there is an established government, which there is not.

Until then they are partisans.

If you don't like that term call them Freedom Fighters.

Bush's stated intentions do not change the fact that Iraq was invaded, and occupied against international law including the UN Charter.

And no, resolution 1441 did not give us authorization to invade....

If they would confine their attacks to military targets I might be willing to accept that. Untill they do they are terrorists and or criminals. Under international law they can be tried and shot. My source is the Geneva Convention. I have no more qualms about them being executed than I do with stepping on a roach.

Bill Oreilly did half of his show last night on the subject of the sicko ACLU.
He is screaming for Rumsfield and Myers to appeal this left-winger judge.
He claims ths release of any more tapes {and I do not belive any raping?}
will just cause more of our brave troops to die.
GO OREILLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by ArchAngel

PLEASE show us all where in international law it is OK to shoot supposed insurgents.

And no, resolution 1441 did not give us authorization to invade....

If they would confine their attacks to military targets I might be willing to accept that. Untill they do they are terrorists and or criminals. Under international law they can be tried and shot. My source is the Geneva Convention. I have no more qualms about them being executed than I do with stepping on a roach.

Why would you require from the Iraqis what you do not demand of our own forces? We have killed upwards of one million Iraqi civilians since the Desert Storm. Sanctions killed a half million children, most under the age of 5. We have killed between 1 and 200,000 civilians in this go around. We have poisioned their land with depleted uranium. We have done far more harm to the Iraqi people than they have done to themselves. But again, why would you hold these people to a higher standard than you hold for our own forces? Are you a republican perchance?

Originally posted by siriuslyone
He claims ths release of any more tapes {and I do not belive any raping?}
will just cause more of our brave troops to die.

Can I ask why you disregard something in such a carte blanche manner, despite there being apparent evidence to back up the opposing claim? Would it not be more advisable to actually wait and see the evidence before making up your mind?

Deny Ignorance, and all that.





[edit on 30/9/05 by Tinkleflower]

I'd like to see some proof on those numbers of Iraqi killed by the US. As far as I know the US didn't kill any civilians between the end of Desert Storm and 2003

Have any of you stopped to think how stupid it would be for someone in uniform to video tape a child rape. I mean really, incredibly, stupid. I believe that this is nothing but more worthless lies by the left to smear our men and women in uniform. You may not agree with being over there in the first place but give me a break. Just another smear campaign by the ACLU and the left.

And, yes it was stupid to take photos in Abu Ghraib in the first place. But I doubt that there are any rape videos.

If they would confine their attacks to military targets I might be willing to accept that.

There are three different 'they's here; the ones who attack foreign forces and the occupational administration, those who attack the Interim Iraqi government forces and administration, and those who attack civilians.

The ones that attack civilians are murderers. The ones that attack the government are criminals, yet they have legitimacy as native rebels in that the interim government was imposed by an occupying force, and still lacks legitimacy.

The ones that attack the foreign forces are Patriots, or Partisans, or Belligerants, or Terrorists depending on your own perception.

I can't tell them apart. Anybody got a scorecard?

So, who are the ones that capture and behead civilians?

As far as I can see they have killed more Iraqi civilians and citizens then American soldiers. And don't tell me one group only attacks certain types of targets, they go after everything as long as it accomplishes their agenda.