The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2842093.stm
----
Men held at Camp X-Ray, an American base since 2001.
Their lawyers demand they be charged, as they have been held without any claims made against them for over a year now.
America's response?
"It's not US soil, they're not covered by our Constitution"
This is the base where 2 "prisoners" died from "blunt force trauma" and the Medical Examiner ruled they had been beaten to death by US interrogators.
But hey, those weapons of mass destruction eh?
----
Men held at Camp X-Ray, an American base since 2001.
Their lawyers demand they be charged, as they have been held without any claims made against them for over a year now.
America's response?
"It's not US soil, they're not covered by our Constitution"
This is the base where 2 "prisoners" died from "blunt force trauma" and the Medical Examiner ruled they had been beaten to death by US interrogators.
But hey, those weapons of mass destruction eh?
Page:
Hey yeah, you're right! That must also be why they've had more test firings of missiles...and threatened to nuke mainland USA if they place sanctions on them!
Light wrote:
> And...and NK has no oil. Wow...
Hey, maybe that's why they want to restart their nuclear power program hmm ?
> And...and NK has no oil. Wow...
Hey, maybe that's why they want to restart their nuclear power program hmm ?
...except for the fact that North Korea is proving to be a more immediate threat, and there is no noise asking THEM to disarm. In fact, the US are basically bribing them to stop making nukes. And...and NK has no oil. Wow...
Light wrote:
> A couple of things:
>
> No, I'm not opposed to intervention anytime anyplace anywhere. You're
> confusing me with France. What I AM pointing out is the reasons for
> this intervention. Reasons which the US have yet to rebut.
And reasons which the political left has no proof for either, nor does anyone else for that matter, you're always telling us all how to base assertions on facts. Well apart from circumstantial evidence there is nothing to suggest the reasons are anything but to disarm and remove Saddam, permanently.
> A couple of things:
>
> No, I'm not opposed to intervention anytime anyplace anywhere. You're
> confusing me with France. What I AM pointing out is the reasons for
> this intervention. Reasons which the US have yet to rebut.
And reasons which the political left has no proof for either, nor does anyone else for that matter, you're always telling us all how to base assertions on facts. Well apart from circumstantial evidence there is nothing to suggest the reasons are anything but to disarm and remove Saddam, permanently.
A couple of things:
No, I'm not opposed to intervention anytime anyplace anywhere. You're confusing me with France. What I AM pointing out is the reasons for this intervention. Reasons which the US have yet to rebut.
The Taliban were not a terrorist regime, or if they were then they were no more a terrorist regime than the US in terms of the supporting terrorism. What they WERE was a bunch of 'ckin lunatics, but lunatics who STILL MANAGED NOT TO KILL THEIR FOREIGN NATIONAL PRISONERS. How comes the US can't do that?
Human Rights: There is an international convention on Human Rights that is a part of international law. So it's not a grey area; it is fairly clearly defined. It's just that it's being ignored. Which is shouted about by those on the political right when those dirty nasty foreigners do it, but kept strangely quiet when it's the US or UK or ride roughshod over it.
No, I'm not opposed to intervention anytime anyplace anywhere. You're confusing me with France. What I AM pointing out is the reasons for this intervention. Reasons which the US have yet to rebut.
The Taliban were not a terrorist regime, or if they were then they were no more a terrorist regime than the US in terms of the supporting terrorism. What they WERE was a bunch of 'ckin lunatics, but lunatics who STILL MANAGED NOT TO KILL THEIR FOREIGN NATIONAL PRISONERS. How comes the US can't do that?
Human Rights: There is an international convention on Human Rights that is a part of international law. So it's not a grey area; it is fairly clearly defined. It's just that it's being ignored. Which is shouted about by those on the political right when those dirty nasty foreigners do it, but kept strangely quiet when it's the US or UK or ride roughshod over it.
The sagacious one wrote:
> In Dirty Harry, Callahan had to beat a confession out of Scorpio in
> order to discover where he had hidden his kidnapped victim. If he had
> followed the law, he would never have found out her location. This is
> obvioulsy a trite example but human rights are a gray area. Let's
> hypothesise and claim that the death of the two prisoners has been the
> catalyst to the other prisoners revealing detailed information about a
> planned terrorist activity, which in turn is going to be adverted by
> this intelligence. 5000 people remain blissfully unaware that they
> have been saved from impending doom. It is hard to put a value on
> human life, as two innocent people have as much right to live as 5000
> innocent people, but where do you make the destinction?
Maybe you're right, but wouldn't killing two of their people make them more stubborn? Wouldn't they be more inclined to keep it to themselves?
> In Dirty Harry, Callahan had to beat a confession out of Scorpio in
> order to discover where he had hidden his kidnapped victim. If he had
> followed the law, he would never have found out her location. This is
> obvioulsy a trite example but human rights are a gray area. Let's
> hypothesise and claim that the death of the two prisoners has been the
> catalyst to the other prisoners revealing detailed information about a
> planned terrorist activity, which in turn is going to be adverted by
> this intelligence. 5000 people remain blissfully unaware that they
> have been saved from impending doom. It is hard to put a value on
> human life, as two innocent people have as much right to live as 5000
> innocent people, but where do you make the destinction?
Maybe you're right, but wouldn't killing two of their people make them more stubborn? Wouldn't they be more inclined to keep it to themselves?
Light wrote:
> Well, okay. Maybe I'm just being silly in expecting the Land of the
> Free to show some sort of deference to human rights. Or maybe, just
> maybe, you're perhaps being a little overzealous in defending the
> indefensible?
I'm saying that, as you, and other people who seem opposed to intervention anywhere anytime, continually point out, countries can do what they want. Iraq can develop its weapons, and thats okay because we/Israel have/sold them. Isn't it a double standard that America cannot, especially when international law actually backs them ? I mean, it's said theat an American led war on Iraq with no UN resolution is against international law, so America should stay within that law. Well they are doing. If you bothered to read what I'd said you'd have seen that I said it was not right, but simply allowed for within law. But hey, carry on...
> I note that you haven't dealt with the outrage that greeted the
> Taliban when they tried a similar trick.
Because I think it is obvious that people should be more concerned when a terrorist regime holds prisoners than when a superpower does.
> I also note that although you can bring attention to the worst
> excesses of the nazi's, you haven't actually been able to rebut the
> fact that the Americans are not granting the prisoners any of the
> human rights that the nazi's did their POW's. Funny that.
Worst excesses eh ? Take off the blinkers.Five million Russian POW's were captured by Germany. One million came out of Germany. Roughly 20% of other allied POWs in Germany died. In the Pacific theater this was closer to 50%. Plus, anyone captured and deemed to be a commando - virtually anybody with a parachute or that they just didn't like - was shot. So yes, I find it quite hilarious how you hold up the Nazi's as a model of human rights enforcement. What next ?
> I'm taking the proverbial obviously, but you see what I'm driving at?
Not really, you're saying it is wrong to hold these people, which very few here, including me, have agreed, but you're examples are shortsighted, especially the Nazi's..... and you avoid the fact that those held there fought allied troops, but were not part of a formal army, hence the lack of POW status. These guys would have killed people, you don't have a gun for any other reason.
> Well, okay. Maybe I'm just being silly in expecting the Land of the
> Free to show some sort of deference to human rights. Or maybe, just
> maybe, you're perhaps being a little overzealous in defending the
> indefensible?
I'm saying that, as you, and other people who seem opposed to intervention anywhere anytime, continually point out, countries can do what they want. Iraq can develop its weapons, and thats okay because we/Israel have/sold them. Isn't it a double standard that America cannot, especially when international law actually backs them ? I mean, it's said theat an American led war on Iraq with no UN resolution is against international law, so America should stay within that law. Well they are doing. If you bothered to read what I'd said you'd have seen that I said it was not right, but simply allowed for within law. But hey, carry on...
> I note that you haven't dealt with the outrage that greeted the
> Taliban when they tried a similar trick.
Because I think it is obvious that people should be more concerned when a terrorist regime holds prisoners than when a superpower does.
> I also note that although you can bring attention to the worst
> excesses of the nazi's, you haven't actually been able to rebut the
> fact that the Americans are not granting the prisoners any of the
> human rights that the nazi's did their POW's. Funny that.
Worst excesses eh ? Take off the blinkers.Five million Russian POW's were captured by Germany. One million came out of Germany. Roughly 20% of other allied POWs in Germany died. In the Pacific theater this was closer to 50%. Plus, anyone captured and deemed to be a commando - virtually anybody with a parachute or that they just didn't like - was shot. So yes, I find it quite hilarious how you hold up the Nazi's as a model of human rights enforcement. What next ?
> I'm taking the proverbial obviously, but you see what I'm driving at?
Not really, you're saying it is wrong to hold these people, which very few here, including me, have agreed, but you're examples are shortsighted, especially the Nazi's..... and you avoid the fact that those held there fought allied troops, but were not part of a formal army, hence the lack of POW status. These guys would have killed people, you don't have a gun for any other reason.
Light wrote:
> I'm all ears as to any reasons why the death of 2 prisoners *is*
> defensible
In Dirty Harry, Callahan had to beat a confession out of Scorpio in order to discover where he had hidden his kidnapped victim. If he had followed the law, he would never have found out her location. This is obvioulsy a trite example but human rights are a gray area. Let's hypothesise and claim that the death of the two prisoners has been the catalyst to the other prisoners revealing detailed information about a planned terrorist activity, which in turn is going to be adverted by this intelligence. 5000 people remain blissfully unaware that they have been saved from impending doom. It is hard to put a value on human life, as two innocent people have as much right to live as 5000 innocent people, but where do you make the destinction?
> I'm all ears as to any reasons why the death of 2 prisoners *is*
> defensible
In Dirty Harry, Callahan had to beat a confession out of Scorpio in order to discover where he had hidden his kidnapped victim. If he had followed the law, he would never have found out her location. This is obvioulsy a trite example but human rights are a gray area. Let's hypothesise and claim that the death of the two prisoners has been the catalyst to the other prisoners revealing detailed information about a planned terrorist activity, which in turn is going to be adverted by this intelligence. 5000 people remain blissfully unaware that they have been saved from impending doom. It is hard to put a value on human life, as two innocent people have as much right to live as 5000 innocent people, but where do you make the destinction?
*L* Deary me...blinkered? Objecting to the murder of 2 people in a US military base? Thats blinkered? O-kay...
Well, okay. Maybe I'm just being silly in expecting the Land of the Free to show some sort of deference to human rights. Or maybe, just maybe, you're perhaps being a little overzealous in defending the indefensible?
As to the legality and status of POW's, I've said it before and I'll say it again: You, and all those arguing that the detention of these people is A-okay, are relying on the letter of the law and not it's spirit. Happily, English law has a way of dealing with this called the Law of Equity. Unhappily, International law does not.
I note that you haven't dealt with the outrage that greeted the Taliban when they tried a similar trick.
I also note that although you can bring attention to the worst excesses of the nazi's, you haven't actually been able to rebut the fact that the Americans are not granting the prisoners any of the human rights that the nazi's did their POW's. Funny that.
I'm all ears as to any reasons why the death of 2 prisoners *is* defensible, but thus far all you've said it "There are worse things going on" as if that makes it okay.
"Yes your honour, my client did murder 12 women on a 2 week killing spree, and he did use a screwdriver to lever their eyesockets apart, but I put it to you that as Saddam Hussein uses torture against his people on a daily basis, there are worse people than my client."
"Oh, well in that case the client can go free!"
I'm taking the proverbial obviously, but you see what I'm driving at?
Well, okay. Maybe I'm just being silly in expecting the Land of the Free to show some sort of deference to human rights. Or maybe, just maybe, you're perhaps being a little overzealous in defending the indefensible?
As to the legality and status of POW's, I've said it before and I'll say it again: You, and all those arguing that the detention of these people is A-okay, are relying on the letter of the law and not it's spirit. Happily, English law has a way of dealing with this called the Law of Equity. Unhappily, International law does not.
I note that you haven't dealt with the outrage that greeted the Taliban when they tried a similar trick.
I also note that although you can bring attention to the worst excesses of the nazi's, you haven't actually been able to rebut the fact that the Americans are not granting the prisoners any of the human rights that the nazi's did their POW's. Funny that.
I'm all ears as to any reasons why the death of 2 prisoners *is* defensible, but thus far all you've said it "There are worse things going on" as if that makes it okay.
"Yes your honour, my client did murder 12 women on a 2 week killing spree, and he did use a screwdriver to lever their eyesockets apart, but I put it to you that as Saddam Hussein uses torture against his people on a daily basis, there are worse people than my client."
"Oh, well in that case the client can go free!"
I'm taking the proverbial obviously, but you see what I'm driving at?
Insane Bartender wrote:
>
> Move along, move along.
Bah. You notables, with your trickery and your words...
>
> Move along, move along.
Bah. You notables, with your trickery and your words...
Page: