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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
I have to ask one question. Who do you think is being detained in Abu Ghraib prison? Last I heard it was captured insurgents.
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]
Originally posted by seattlelaw
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.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
If they would confine their attacks to military targets I might be willing to accept that.