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.

 

UN Report: US Is Abusing Captives

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has said the
United States must shut down Guantanamo Bay prison
camp "as soon as is possible".


That's funny!!
I have no doubt that Annan wants attention
put on an anti-american fad issue like Gitmo. It takes the spotlight
away from his criminal behaviors ... like all those billions illegally flowing
under his nose from Saddam to the Security Council. Like his own
nephews illegal activities in regards to Iraq. The UN Sex Scandels.
etc. etc. etc.


why are these People not on Trial and Charged for the Crimes,
that they supposed to have Commited?

When have prisoners of war been put on trial for 'crimes'
during a war? They are prisoners of war. At the end of
the war, they will be released. Of course, as was said
so well just a few posts ago, they aren't even entitled
to Geneva POW considerations.




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Because they are just so, "enemy combatants". Not common criminals. Their methods of fighting go against the Geneva Convention, and therefore, could technically nullify its application to them as enemy combatants. Save your bleeding heart for those who truely deserve it, like accused criminals in jail based on falsified/tarnished DNA evidence. This is coming to light in the states and hundreds of cases are being reopended and evidence reexamined to be sure that these folks arent in jail due to falisfied/contaminated evidence. Or those caught in the middle of fighting around the world, but not for these savages, I dont shed a tear for them.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   
this one is nice:

www.guardian.co.uk...



The judge said: "America's idea of what is torture is not the same as ours and does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations."


indeed.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
That's funny!!
I have no doubt that Annan wants attention
put on an anti-american fad issue like Gitmo. It takes the spotlight
away from his criminal behaviors ... like all those billions illegally flowing
under his nose from Saddam to the Security Council. Like his own
nephews illegal activities in regards to Iraq. The UN Sex Scandels.

Interesting, that you always Avoid the Consideration, that US goverment is also involved in Numerous Criminal Scandals, to which the VP of US goverment is involved just to name a few. You always tend to Ignore the fact, that your Goverment has Lied Numerous times when talking about War on Terror or Iraq for that Matter. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where? Saddam tied to Al-Qaeda? How - if he was Afraid of them, and above all, Al-Qaeda is the CIA-MI5-Mossad's Baby, supported and founded by Rich Saudi Arab families, like House of Saud and House of Bin Laden; surpisingly Both in Business Contracts with the US Goverment and the Ex-Presidents Club - The Carlyle Group. But that ofcourse has no Importance to you whatsoever.

Oil For Food? A Smoke Screen.

“this posturing is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, designed to shift attention away from the debacle of George Bush’s self-made quagmire in Iraq, and legitimize the invasion of Iraq by using Iraqi corruption and not the now-missing weapons of mass destruction, as the excuse.”

Ofcourse you also forget, that the US Goverment Military Contractors involved in Sex Scandals and White Slave Trafficking when Protecting Peace and Stability in the Balkans - like CSC/DynCorp, with Military Contracts to US Goverment worth $2.4 billion in 20004.

The world's premier rent-a-cop business runs the security show in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the US-Mexico border. They also run the coca crop-dusting business in Colombia, and occasional sex trafficking sorties in Bosnia. But what can you expect from a bunch of mercenaries?

Indeed.



When have prisoners of war been put on trial for 'crimes'
during a war? They are prisoners of war. At the end of
the war, they will be released. Of course, as was said
so well just a few posts ago, they aren't even entitled
to Geneva POW considerations.

If you rememeber - but of course you again conveniently ignored the FACT that US Armed Forces also broke a Number of International Conventions in Laws when in Combat: White Phosphorous, Depleted Uranium, Napalm - all of that ofcourse is not Breaking any of the Conventions or Laws. That is Demcoratic. That is Okey. Even if the United States is a Signatory Member of all those Conventions regarding Warfare and regarding the treatment of Prisoners of War.

From Top to Bottom this War on Terrorism was Nothing but LEGAL - therefore everything the Military Forces and All of the Goverments Involved, perform and execute in the name of the alleged War on Terrorism is Considered ILLEGAL, like the Illegal Occupation of Iraq for Example.

How dare you then Use that same Laws and Conventions to further Approve the Abuse and Torture of the People who are considered to be Suspected Enemy Combatants, out of the Majority was not Trialed, Charged of Anything in 2+ years!



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
MI5

What?
Why would a security force who's job is to defend inside and occasionally outside the UK make a group like alquida?
Hell if anything it would be SIS , shall I call up this old arguement again souljah?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
What?
Why would a security force who's job is to defend inside and occasionally outside the UK make a group like alquida?
Hell if anything it would be SIS , shall I call up this old arguement again souljah?

Leaked MI5 London Bombing report may be disinfo
Terror Expert: 7/7 Mastermind was working for British Intelligence, Group was used by Brits in Kosovo in the late 90s
Al-Qaida suspect 'hidden by UK agents'
Al-Qaeda cleric exposed as an MI5 double agent
French accuse MI5 of failing to help terror hunt



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
The first source says nothing about MI5 abroad, just that it used Alquida agents as informants, so what?
interpol and the UN have used mass murderers and varios police services do the same , does this mean the group is in the agenecies pocket? Hell no.

Second source:


were recruited by MI6 to fight in Kosovo.

Yeah didnt I just mention SIS, or MI6 as it is unofficially known as, would be the ones doing this not MI5??


Third source was all about how they had a triple agent in thier pay , big deal. The russians, the americans and most of europe have people EXSACTLY like that. Hell during WW2 one of MI5's best officers turned out to be a russian spy, double agent.

Oh and the part about "not heeding allies warnings" is a load of bull, for all we know the man could have had intel on any european intelligence service that THEY didnt want to know about.

And the fourth source well...



Mr Brugiere was furious when the High Court in London quashed an extradition order made by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, in June, because the evidence against Mr Ramda, 32, had come from another suspect who claimed to have been ill-treated by the French.

Funny the french deny it and accuse britain of similar things



A French official said: "He claimed we tortured him but it is plain nonsense. We're talking about France here, not Pakistan or Afghanistan.

"Now Britain is in something of a sticky situation. They've been holding this guy for the past six years, they haven't charged him with anything and they won't extradite him. If it's not careful the British Government is going to find itself before the European courts accused of abusing his human rights."

Yet again no mention of MI5 controlling Alquida, but ofcourse this doesnt matter as long as MI5 gets painted black does it ?


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
FlyersFan:

see the links for Geneva Convention, etc?? READ.


See, the thing is, the Geneva Convention does not allow for indefinite incarceration of combatants. You are putting people in prison without access to counsel, for an indeterminate amount of time which is clearly a violation of the Geneva Convention.

So please, try not to lecture me or anyone else on things you are obviously sadly misinformed over.


They are held until they are determined
not to be a threat. OR until the hostilities cease. Just like
in all other wars.


Glaring proof of your ignorance. In every war before this people caught on the battlefield were treated according the the Geneva Convention as POW's. Remember all those POW camps in Vietnam? They were held there because they were ENEMY SOLDIERS. Not "illegal combatants".

And even if the US captured Vietcong, they were usually treated according to the Geneva Code. They were NOT held until they were determined not to be a threat (WHO determines that?).

That you can't see the obvious facts in front of your face is no surprise to me.


When have prisoners of war been put on trial for 'crimes'
during a war? They are prisoners of war. At the end of
the war, they will be released. Of course, as was said
so well just a few posts ago, they aren't even entitled
to Geneva POW considerations.


Another perfect example of your floundering. Let me set it up for you.

They are prisoners of war.

then a SENTENCE later

Of course, as was said
so well just a few posts ago, they aren't even entitled
to Geneva POW considerations.


So they are but they're not. Thanks for clearing that up. If you can find me the passage in the Convention that legalizes Gitmo, I am all ears.

And I'd love to hear your explanation as to WHEN the War on Terror ends. What determines that you've "won"? Are you winning now? What's the score?

Please explain.

jako

p.s. The Geneva Convention does not permit torture either. God frowns upon inflicting pain on your brothers as well....

So who's side is the USA on anyway? Not freedom. Not "good". Anyone?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Just thought I'd throw in a few data.

MI6 actually paid Al Qaeda £100,000 to assassinate Qadafi back in the days when he headed the Evildoer of the Month club. He's now our mate and all cuddly since he took the rap for the Lockerbie disaster (and heaven knows there's plenty of dirt on THAT - I know someone who got off the flight at Heathrow, who said he sat next to a US serviceman going home on leave who was terrified - he'd heard rumours that there was a bomb on board the plane). The assassination plot went wrong and a couple of bystanders were killed. The guy who blew the whistle on this nefarious little plot had to leave the country and live in France for a while.

It's certainly not as if the Brits can claim to have clean hands.

And let's just run this one down for the John Waynes of this forum. US soldiers pick up someone and take him to Gitmo. How do they know he's an enemy combatant? Have they carefully checked? Were ALL of the Guantanamo detainees arrested with a gun in their hands? Actually, no. Let's face it, if they had a gun in their hands, they'd be dead.

This is why you DON'T KNOW if they're really insurgents (people who don't like you invading their country and have the nuts to do something about it) or perhaps people shopped by a malevolent informant; or even people just caught up at random.

Further, there are good reasons to abhor the use of torture, not the least of which is that no-one can point to good, reliable intel produced by its use. Intel is a highly volatile thing which depreciates in value pretty much by the hour. The Guantanamo detainees have been in prison for years, yet no-one will charge them or release them. It serves no purpose, although the guards, as at Abu Ghraib, seem to be having fun. And I suppose it gives the John Waynes round here a warm (if misplaced) sense of retribution....

Oh, yeah. Flyers Fan.

"That's funny!! I have no doubt that Annan wants attention
put on an anti-american fad issue like Gitmo. It takes the spotlight
away from his criminal behaviors ... like all those billions illegally flowing
under his nose from Saddam to the Security Council. Like his own
nephews illegal activities in regards to Iraq. The UN Sex Scandels.
etc. etc. etc. "

Still the Good German, I see. I suspect you picked up the phrase "anti-American fad issue" from some Fox News chat show. You really ought to consider what is so American about locking people up and throwing away the key. And perhaps contemplate that the senior member of the Security Council is the US.

What is, of course, utterly American about the whole invasion business is that the country has been asset-stripped and sold to the corporations. They have to use Monsanto GM seeds, for example. It's now illegal for them to save their own seeds for their own crops.

Mote and beam there, I think.

[edit on 17-2-2006 by rich23]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
rich23,

I couldn't agree more on the point of torture as an intel-extraction method. Ditto on the next point about depreciating value of intel.

I have this thought that nobody seems to have mentioned or questioned before. Where does the money go? I'm talking about the construction and maintenance of these detainment facilities. US tax-payer dollars are being used for it, no doubt, but where does the money flow?

Just trying to think outside the box a bit in response to your statement that it serves no purpose.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
and above all, Al-Qaeda is the CIA-MI5-Mossad's Baby, supported and founded by Rich Saudi Arab families, like House of Saud and House of Bin Laden;

Firstly, the House of Saud has more than 10,000 members in it. Whom are you refering to in that "house" ???
Second there is no such thing called the "house of Bin Laden". Bin laden has been disowned by his family and is no way considered to be part of the Laden family.
As for Al-Qaeda being the CIA-MI5-Mossad baby, I think the Question should be How? Where? etc. Do you have any proof other than michealmore dot com ? and other such loaded slander? CAn you prove this in court that Bin ladens attack on the US was funded by the CIA ?? CAN you ? Can anybody ?
Spewing slander on ATS is not very difficult but can you back it up in court ?


surpisingly Both in Business Contracts with the US Goverment and the Ex-Presidents Club - The Carlyle Group. But that ofcourse has no Importance to you whatsoever.

Again the Carlyle group? Seems like it is some sort of fad for conspiracists to mention the carlyle group isnt it ? I doubt any have actually seen a Carlyle office or know much about its assets and their distribution. Well here is its asset distribution :


Also as for the Ex-Presidents club, do you know that Billy Clinton is not a investor in the group and as are many more presidents and people of power. Just becasue the Bush Family is involved in the Group doesnt imply that it is some twisted conspiracy. Also the reason that the group doesnt accept anybody except "accredited investors" into its fold doesnt mean that they are some NWO cult. Obviously only people with greater net worth, i.e those permitted under the securities law to be considered as accredited investers or qualified purchasers like institutional investors etc would be elligible to be investors. Also let us not forget Calpers that is a direct owner of a share in Carlyle provides financial security to tens of thousands off Americas middle class by its sucess and not to mention act as a security net for a large number of pensioners.


Oil For Food? A www.commondreams.org...]Smoke Screen[/url].

Again "commondreams" ??
I bet that this site gives the most enlightened view ! What next warprofiteers dot com ? Oh wait that IS next!
Here is something that goes with this site UnCommon Dreams!


If you rememeber - but of course you again conveniently ignored the FACT that US Armed Forces also broke a Number of International Conventions in Laws when in Combat: White Phosphorous, Depleted Uranium, Napalm - all of that ofcourse is not Breaking any of the Conventions or Laws.

Again Full circle!!
The WP issue crops up again even though it has been proved beyond any shread of doubt that the use of WP is perfectly legal in Fallujah! Obviously I have proved it but apparently this still has to be brought in.
The US use of DU is also been shown that it only hastened victory rather than protracting the conflict which in essence would have killed more people. Also it is in no way bound by any legislation that specifies that DU use is explicitly illegal that the US is signatory to. As for the napalm charge that is mere hearsay and no proof exsists of its actual use, like any documentation of use, other than reports by civilians and other quasi-military personel who "think" that it might have been used!
But I guess all these efforts to save lives by shortening war is mamoth compared to the rank corruption from the UN, whic is one of the primary causes for Iraq's preset state and the starvation of millions in Iraq during Saddams regeim. Also not to forget the direct contravention of UN rules by the family of the Secretary General of the UN in aiding Saddam towards the propagation of his tyrannical and genocidal ways against his people.
But I guess THAT is minimal compared to the Harm in expediting war and thereby saving further civilian casualties !


From Top to Bottom this War on Terrorism was Nothing but LEGAL

You are absolutely correct, the War on Terror is nothing but Legal, completely bound by the rule of law and never deviating from the spirit of justice.


How dare you then Use that same Laws and Conventions to further Approve the Abuse and Torture of the People who are considered to be Suspected Enemy Combatants, out of the Majority was not Trialed, Charged of Anything in 2+ years!

Well running around in the battle field and throwing grenades at Coalition troops or firing at US soldiers are not the acts of "suspected enemy combatants". All those who are caught were caught with due reason based on circumstance and their involvement. They are lucky to be under US protection where they are sure to survive and have the truth prevail but unfortunately that is not the case for US soldiers/civilians who on capture by these terrorists would be shot or beheaded on tape for the world to watch. So compared to this treatment that they dish out I would think that they have royal accomadations in Camp X ray and also compared to most prisions in the world. Also being Terrorists they are NOT subject to Any considerations of POW's or even militia. The Geneva Convention for those who like to speculate on its contents says :

www.unhchr.ch...
Article 4:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

As we know clearly, the Al-Qaeda do NOT follow subsection b) and d) of article 4A-2. That is they do NOT carry any distinctive sign recognizable at a distance and do NOT conduct their operation in accordance with the laws and customs of war. This is plain to see and easily discernable to all. Any contestation of these facts would be futile.

[edit on 17-2-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
IAF101:

As for Al-Qaeda being the CIA-MI5-Mossad baby, I think the Question should be How? Where? etc. Do you have any proof other than michealmore dot com ?


Um, Bin Laden was trained by the US when he was a mujaheddin fighting the Russians when they were controlling Afghanistan. Once the Russians were chased out and the U.S. left Afghanistan to the warlords and the Taliban, Bin Laden organized some aspects of the mujaheddin into Al Qaeda.

And he got pissed that the U.S. was in the Holy Land. He doesn't "hate you for your freedoms" or any such silly nonsense.

www.pbs.org...


"For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."


You want corroboration that he was a CIA asset? Here's an article from 1998.

www.msnbc.com...


By no means was Osama bin Laden the leader of Afghanistan’s mujahedeen. His money gave him undue prominence in the Afghan struggle, but the vast majority of those who fought and died for Afghanistan’s freedom - like the Taliban regime that now holds sway over most of that tortured nation - were Afghan nationals.
Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.


It's called "history".

You said:

Again "commondreams" ?? I bet that this site gives the most enlightened view ! What next warprofiteers dot com ?


Commondreams is not a news site. They LINK articles from the press. The article linked that you dismiss so easily is from a newspaper in the UK called The Independent. An accredited news organization. Here's the link again, pay attention to the top part (called the tagline).

www.commondreams.org...

Published on Sunday, December 12, 2004 by the Independent / UK


You wrote:

Again the Carlyle group? Seems like it is some sort of fad for conspiracists to mention the carlyle group isnt it ?


They're an easy target because they are stacked with former high-level US politicians (a.k.a. professional liars). They have an incredible amount of control over the arms industry and much much more.

Pay attention to the taglines, the articles are by news organizations.

www.hereinreality.com...

Read it and tell me what you think if you've the time.

You said:

The US use of DU is also been shown that it only hastened victory rather than protracting the conflict which in essence would have killed more people.


Do you have a link for this? Because the effects of DU take thousands of years to subside, and they are causing birth defects, deaths, and radiation poisoning all over Iraq. Here's my link, waiting for yours...

Is the Sunday Herald a good enough source, or has Michael Moore ever said something good about them, thus making them an unreliable source to you.

www.sundayherald.com...


You wrote:

But I guess all these efforts to save lives by shortening war is mamoth compared to the rank corruption from the UN, whic is one of the primary causes for Iraq's preset state and the starvation of millions in Iraq during Saddams regeim.


Which is a lie, actually. The US pushed like crazy to keep sanctions up even when the U.N. wanted them lifted. PLEASE provide a link that tries to back up your whopper....
Here's mine.

www.accuracy.org...


May 20, 1991: President George Bush: "At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." James Baker, Secretary of State: "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."

May 12, 1996: On "60 Minutes," Lesley Stahl asks Albright: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?" Albright responds: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

March 26, 1997: Albright, in her first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected. Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."

October 3, 1997: A joint study by the United Nations' Food & Agriculture Organization and World Food Program, found the sanctions "significantly constrained Iraq's ability to earn foreign currency needed to import sufficient quantities of food to meet needs. As a consequence, food shortages and malnutrition became progressively severe and chronic in the 1990s."www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/giews/english/alertes/srirq997.htm

August 20, 1998: Richardson: "Sanctions may stay on in perpetuity." (The New York Times, August 21, 1998)


I'll wait patiently for your proof that the UN was at fault here more than the US.


All those who are caught were caught with due reason based on circumstance and their involvement.


Link please, that proves that all "enemy combatants" caught were done so with due reason. Some of them are totally incommunicado, their names not even released, so I am more than curious as to how you know this information.

Do you read what you link?


A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.


BELONGING TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES, NOT ALL. Are these people not "members of militias or volunteer corps"?


That is they do NOT carry any distinctive sign recognizable at a distance and do NOT conduct their operation in accordance with the laws and customs of war. This is plain to see and easily discernable to all. Any contestation of these facts would be futile.


Hmm. So according to this, if US soldiers are walking around offduty and without uniforms on they can just be captured and any and all protections they have under the Geneva Convention are null and void.

Wow, do they know this?

Sorry that you'll have to do some searching to find all those links, but I can wait for as long as it takes for you to prove your side.



-jako



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
i'll do it for you Jako>~ BAM! .....and that's taking it up a knotch

it goes to show..... know your stuff before making wild accusations because there's always someone else who know's your stuff better than you.

..................................................................stinky

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

BELONGING TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES, NOT ALL. Are these people not "members of militias or volunteer corps"?


*sigh* both categories have to follow the subsections genius, your not immune to the rules of war (rules of war, such contradiction in terms) because you are in a militia or volunteer corps.


Hmm. So according to this, if US soldiers are walking around offduty and without uniforms on they can just be captured and any and all protections they have under the Geneva Convention are null and void.


When was the last time a US soldier was treated in accordance with the conventions, uniform or non uniform?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Um, Bin Laden was trained by the US when he was a mujaheddin fighting the Russians when they were controlling Afghanistan. Once the Russians were chased out and the U.S. left Afghanistan to the warlords and the Taliban, Bin Laden organized some aspects of the mujaheddin into Al Qaeda.

Wrong! Bin Laden was not personally trained by the US there is no PROOF of this, hearsay from popular news sources does not validate misconceptions !
If you can prove this fact that Bin Laden was paid by the CIA to blow up the WTC I will personally finance your legal bills and put to court the CIA !
Can you prove this beyond all reasonable doubt in court ?


You want corroboration that he was a CIA asset? Here's an article from 1998.
www.msnbc.com...
It's called "history".

I think it is you who need to read the article, it but a generalization about the Mujahidden and never says catagorically that Bin Laden was handed cash by the CIA. Also it associates Bin laden to the group of Mujahideen who were helped by the CIA against the Soviet forces.
NO proof of any direct and specific CIA involvement with Bin Laden has been shown! Also it says he had his own money, why then would he require CIA money ??


Commondreams is not a news site. They LINK articles from the press. The article linked that you dismiss so easily is from a newspaper in the UK called The Independent. An accredited news organization. Here's the link again, pay attention to the top part (called the tagline).

Dont bore me with this banality!
That article is NOT NEWS from the Independent! IT is a mere editorial that has published one persons view on the Iraq and is by no mean a NEWS item that can be taken as fact.
Also conveniently the author of that article forgets to mention that while Saddam was busy doing his nefarious oil deals and supposed to get food instead of cash for his oil, Annan's kin were busy giving him cash and knocking off excess oil for dirt cheap rates. Apparently, preventing Saddam from getting his hands on Cash that would prevent him from buying weapons is the reason his people starved and not his and the UN's failure to abide by the oil for foods program!


They're an easy target because they are stacked with former high-level US politicians (a.k.a. professional liars). They have an incredible amount of control over the arms industry and much much more.

None of which is a crime. Politicians, no matter what your prejudices are, have the right to invest their money any way they see fit. If they are eligible to invest in the Carlyle group then that is their privilege. If people should take it that some powerfull politicians have invested in a company, that is their choice and there is nothing in the world that the common man can do about it.
It is their money and they can do what they wish with it. If the money they possess is beyond their incomes then they can be sued by the IRS just like everybody else.


Pay attention to the taglines, the articles are by news organizations.
www.hereinreality.com...
Read it and tell me what you think if you've the time.

Hidden reality dot com ?? Please !




Do you have a link for this? Because the effects of DU take thousands of years to subside, and they are causing birth defects, deaths, and radiation poisoning all over Iraq. Here's my link, waiting for yours...

Do I need to have a link to prove that 1+1 is 2 ??
DU ammo are more lethal against armour than conventional weapons, thus they have greater kill rates. Thus the war is expedited significantly in Americas favour. The war ends quickly and thus lesser need to expose civilians.
As for the long term effects of DU, the most effect is on the people who stay for weeks on end a foot away from a pile of live DU rounds. The use of it in the battlefield is as I said, not limited by any international convention that the US is signatory to. Also about the long term health risks that is not clearly defined and there has been no defenitive proof for that.
For further insight into this issue go to the topic on DU at the WOT section of ATS.


Is the Sunday Herald a good enough source, or has Michael Moore ever said something good about them, thus making them an unreliable source to you.
www.sundayherald.com...

Read up your souce before you get cocky!


"The article was not approved for publication because parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of inter national experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium" - Dr Mike Repacholi, the WHO coordinator of radiation and environmental health in Geneva.

Therefore, it is NOT an official report and NOT the "best science in the area of depleted uranium" .
Granted the newspaper has presented the facts throught its own "perspective" by marginalising the contrasting facts and highlighting those that support its viewpoint.


Which is a lie, actually. The US pushed like crazy to keep sanctions up even when the U.N. wanted them lifted. PLEASE provide a link that tries to back up your whopper....
Here's mine.
www.accuracy.org...
I'll wait patiently for your proof that the UN was at fault here more than the US.

Already explained above. The US was against Saddam aquiring cash and never for denying Iraq food or medicine. Plus the administartion was Clintons and he somehow made the right choice. Moreover it was the choice of the Security Council also.
And as for the quid pro quo you expect for links, I am sorry that I do have the time nor the inclination to entertain such vanity.
Use google/ask Jeeves and look it up yourself.



Link please, that proves that all "enemy combatants" caught were done so with due reason. Some of them are totally incommunicado, their names not even released.

The only logic that would be needed to be applied here is the fact that the whole of Afganistan isnt in CAmp X ray(some 200 odd are though) ! Some who were thought to be more valuable amognst the detainees were sent to camp X ray among other detention camps. Also the fact that the US has released prisioners from Camp X ray that were found to be free from any guilt on their part. I think just recently one of them was let out.
The very logic of it would demand that, people who are considered as threats would be detained and those who are not would be let out and save the military the bother of maintenance of that additional individual.



Do you read what you link?
BELONGING TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES, NOT ALL. Are these people not "members of militias or volunteer corps"?

No they are not. I think you need to understand the difference between militia's and terrorists. Do you "understand" what you read ??



1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.


Militias here are trained civilians that function as military and are generally used for paramilitary service. Terrorists on the other hand are trained to create terror and chaos to affect civilians and cause unrest. They do not act in a military fashion and aim at causing destruction rather than resistence.
Al Qaeda fighters have not been categorized as "unlawful combatants" under the Geneva Conventions, meaning the treaty, and the rights guaranteed in it, will not apply to them. The fighters do not qualify because they do not represent any country that is party to the treaty. Also the Taliban government was never recognised by the US as the valid afghan govt of Afganistan and thus the Taliban troops are to be treated as "unlawful combatants". This gives them rights unde the Geneva convention but not as POW's !! They can apply for trials in US courts and stand trial there, many have exercised this right! Go read up the US postion on the Taliban caputred after the war.
THUS they come under the second category of Article 4 and not the first. Even single person who has read that has found this to be so. Even legally it would come under the 2 category not the first.


Hmm. So according to this, if US soldiers are walking around offduty and without uniforms on they can just be captured and any and all protections they have under the Geneva Convention are null and void.

US soldiers do NOT walk around offduty in a warzone !! They are always on duty in a War. Next, if said soldier in civilian attire was in the possession of weapons and conducitng unlawful warfare, the enemy would have every right to capture him and take him as an "unlawfull combatant" And YES the US military knows this. Thats why you dont see so many off duty soldiers in a battlefield with guns !!

Edit: Correction of grammer


[edit on 17-2-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Well, IAF, where to start in your rambling stream of illogic? There's just too much nonsense to take in, really, but a few points:

Your point about depleted uranium, that "As for the long term effects of DU, the most effect is on the people who stay for weeks on end a foot away from a pile of live DU rounds. The use of it in the battlefield is as I said, not limited by any international convention that the US is signatory to. Also about the long term health risks that is not clearly defined and there has been no defenitive proof for that"

Well... when a DU shell impacts, it tends to vapourise, leaving an aerosol vapour of radioactive particles with a half-life in the millions of years. You probably haven't seen the pictures of babies born pretty much inside-out as a result of their mothers' exposure to this stuff, but I have. From what I read of you as a person it wouldn't make much difference if you did: you'd find a way to rationalise this vileness. You don't have to stand next to a pile of munitions to be affected. Plus DU, radioactivity aside, is massively toxic. The US scientist who investigated all this for the army got fired for telling the truth. I really cannot be bothered to provide a link because you'd attack the source. The reasoning is there however, and it will make sense to some of the people who read this forum.

As for the "read up your source before you get cocky!" - the source TOLD you that the report had been suppressed by the WHO which had in turn been leant on by the US-driven IAEA. You therefore went and found a quote to back up the suppression. The US has very pressing reasons for smothering debate on this issue and for covering up the scientific work surrounding it. Recently we've heard that one of NASA's leading climate scientists had his work suppressed when it revealed evidence of global warming actually being real. Dubya and his backers REALLY don't want that message out: and the effects of DU is in the same category.

Attempting to understand the world as it really is requires that one accepts that the people in power will lie to cover up their greed and errors. But seeing you tie yourself in knots trying to get across the point that DU is SAFE... it's not very edifying, really.

As for the Carlyle Group, it certainly seems to hoover up ex-premiers. The UK's very own John Major is on its board: not the most charismatic of prime ministers but one who seems to have been able to feather his own nest rather well. And Carlyle's latest coup has been to rip off the UK taxpayers by arranging a suspicious sweetheart deal on the privatisation of Qinetiq, previously a state-owned department for developing new weapons. For a stake of £42m, they're looking at making around £400m. THAT's suspicious, frankly, and if the UK government must sell off things paid for by the UK taxpayer to foreign corporations, it behooves it not to get ripped off.

As for the stuff about the Geneva Conventions, that's interesting. I know for a fact that the French resistance certainly adhered to none of those ludicrous restrictions like 'carrying a fixed sign', 'openly bearing arms'. Let's face it. An alien power is occupying your country. That power is asset-stripping the institutions of your native land and making it impossible even to grow your own food. Whole towns have been laid waste with chemical weapons. Trigger happy soldiers are everywhere. You want these people OUT of your country. Would YOU wear a little badge saying "I'm a member of the official resistance"? And perhaps a nice big bulls-eye target on your T-shirt?

But what makes it more interesting is that it makes it therefore more difficult to tell who's a genuine militiaman and who isn't. Which is why it's inevitable that some innocent people will be swept up in US military raids. What about them? Is it just 'tough luck, we're trying to win a war here'?

Oh nice avatar, by the way. Very scary.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Just trying to get the thread back on topic, so here, I'm gonna reiterate what I just asked but everyone seems to have missed in their heated exchanges:-


Originally posted by Beachcoma

I have this thought that nobody seems to have mentioned or questioned before. Where does the money go? I'm talking about the construction and maintenance of these detainment facilities. US tax-payer dollars are being used for it, no doubt, but where does the money flow?

Just trying to think outside the box a bit in response to rich23's statement that it serves no purpose.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Souljah: Does it bother you at all that the people who put this report together are some of the worst human rights abusers in the world?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Perhaps he's just choosing the lesser of two evils, since there are no saints to choose from?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Sorry beachcomba, got distracted... I did once come across a great chart showing how several companies were making piles out of the war, but can't remember where it was. You could try the corporate watch websites, for example.

Of course one of the major beneficiaries of the war is Halliburton, which is still paying Dick Cheney a retainer, it seems. Their subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root also gets many many contracts. Between them they seem to get the lion's share of construction and maintenance contracts, and both have been accused of overcharging.

One of the things that people forget is that Iraq had many engineers, builders, architects and so on of their own. Some of them have even been together enough to put in bids against US companies - which never seemed to get them anywhere, oddly enough... I read an account by Riversbend, the Iraqi blogger, in which the US company's estimate for repairing a bridge was about 10 times more than it would have cost an Iraqi company to do it. Of course the contract went to the American company.

And let's not forget the PSAs - Production Service Agreements - that mean that the Iraqis get almost nothing from the companies extracting their oil.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join