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.
Originally posted by stanats
reply to post by GovtFlu
If that is the best you can do to provide proof of the assertions being made, one can only conclude that this thread is nothing but phony-balony outrage from the Grand Old Teabaggers and Fox 'News'.
Originally posted by SFGirl
reply to post by groingrinder
I hate that this is my first post here, however I want to clarify something. They are covered by the Geneva Convention and by the very fact that they are not UNIFORMED Combatants they have none of the protections of the Geneva Convention. Nor are they truly subject to our Penal Codes so - if we were to truly to follow the Rules of War - there would be no Gitmo, because it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention to execute them on sight.
And as a retired Veteran who was there in the First Gulf War and lost a number of friends in both wars - I would see no problem in that. In fact, it would have solved the problem of Gitmo.
SFGirl
edit on 9-3-2011 by SFGirl because: Forgot my signature.edit on 9-3-2011 by SFGirl because: I goofed
Originally posted by SFGirl
reply to post by groingrinder
I hate that this is my first post here, however I want to clarify something. They are covered by the Geneva Convention and by the very fact that they are not UNIFORMED Combatants they have none of the protections of the Geneva Convention. Nor are they truly subject to our Penal Codes so - if we were to truly to follow the Rules of War - there would be no Gitmo, because it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention to execute them on sight.
And as a retired Veteran who was there in the First Gulf War and lost a number of friends in both wars - I would see no problem in that. In fact, it would have solved the problem of Gitmo.
SFGirl
Originally posted by LeJimster
reply to post by SFGirl
I'm sorry, your saying just execute all these detainees? Even the ones that have been found innocent but are still locked away because the President doesn't want them freed ever? I think you are missing the point! I'm personally pro-life so I would never execute these prisoners if they've committed a crime or not. I would have them stand a proper trial if they are guilty of anything and would sentence them accordingly.
Originally posted by Misoir
...even Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and the worst dictators in history have never given themselves the legal authority to make the final decision on someone’s life...
Originally posted by OldCorp
Originally posted by SFGirl
reply to post by groingrinder
I hate that this is my first post here, however I want to clarify something. They are covered by the Geneva Convention and by the very fact that they are not UNIFORMED Combatants they have none of the protections of the Geneva Convention. Nor are they truly subject to our Penal Codes so - if we were to truly to follow the Rules of War - there would be no Gitmo, because it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention to execute them on sight.
And as a retired Veteran who was there in the First Gulf War and lost a number of friends in both wars - I would see no problem in that. In fact, it would have solved the problem of Gitmo.
SFGirl
Sshhhh! Don't confuse them with facts; their heads will explode.
BTW, I'm ALL for the "execute them on the battlefield" route. Simple, easy, cheap, and no collateral damage. Now if we could get away from all of the politically correct BS, grease our weapons with pork fat and let them KNOW we did, they might be dissuaded from fighting at all.