FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Torture and the US





adredwood
With the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the Bush administration has brought into law what has long been policy, namely the use of torture to extract confession and as a routine interrogation instrument for both foreign nationals (i.e. Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan) and domestic incarcerations. This article by Edward Herman details the historical link between the US and states that routinely use torture, and the remarkable outsourcing that occurs with US client states, as well as the domestic uses by police and prison services that are widespread.

Military Commissions Act 2006—Unchecked Powers?

The above link gives some analysis of the effects of the new bill, as well as Amnesty International's reaction to it's passing. From the article, the primary effects will be as follows:

1. Strips the right of detainees to habeas corpus (the traditional right of detainees to challenge their detention);
2. Gives the US President the power to detain indefinitely anyone—US or foreign nationals, from within the US, and from abroad—it deems to have provided material support to anti-US hostilities, and even use secret and coerced evidence (i.e. through use of torture) to try detainees who will be held in secret US military prisons;
3. Gives US officials immunity from prosecution for torturing detainees that were captured before the end of 2005 by US military and CIA. (ibid)

See also this article for further legal ramifications.

I post this after seeing a couple of mentions elsewhere of the US attitude to torture - there seem to be a number of people buying into the rhetoric of America as benevolent guardian of human rights. The reality is a government that has no moral highground on which to stand, an administration of hypocrites propagating a myth, pure and simple.

Andy

'That until the basic human rights are equally
Guaranteed to all, without regard to race
Dis a war

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be pursued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war'

Bob Marley - War
S3nd K3ys
I think it's awsome. If the US doesn't start fighting back, the US is going to lose.

Do you honestly think the Radical Islamic Muslims give a crap about YOUR rights while they saw off your head and rape your wife and dismember your baby and drag it's body thru the streets then hang what's left from a bridge?

I kind of doubt they'll be thinking about YOUR rights, but hey, feel free to go on over there and see how much they like your ideals. Wink

This falls right in there with illegal immigrants and their supporters trying to use our laws to break our laws. Kind of stupid, don't you think?
palavra
S3nd K3ys wrote:
IDo you honestly think the Radical Islamic Muslims give a ......and rape your wife and ....

?

i don t defence radicals

but i don't know any "radical muslim" raped any usa woman

but

you know some animals in usa military uniform raped a teenager in iraq

then killed her and her family.

i think this is a bigger crime than 9/11.
why ?
the radicals in 9/11 were some maniacs.
but your animals who are in the military uniform that sopposed to be guaranty of security.
ibay
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I think it's awsome. If the US doesn't start fighting back, the US is going to lose.

Is there any place left on earth where the USA is not fighting in one way or another?
S3nd K3ys wrote:

.....while they saw off your head and rape your wife and dismember your baby and drag it's body thru the streets then hang what's left from a bridge?

Exactly when and where did this happen to an American?
It is a much ignored fact that this happened uncountable times to Muslims and continued to be done today.
ibay
palavra wrote:

you know some animals in usa military uniform raped a teenager in iraq
then killed her and her family.


and those military men who killed 650,000+ Iraqis are perfectly human
Applause

ya, I know, "this happens in war" Liar
adredwood
I think what is being exhibited here (S3dn K3ys) is an 'us and them' mentality - go over there and see what they think. They are us. This is not some hippy idealism im trying to espouse here, it is reality. Those that we are fighting, those that fight us, they have lives and blood and family and morality and they are pissed off about many aspects of US foreign policy.

S3nd K3ys recently posted this link in another thread, a somewhat surprising choice as it serves as a damning indictment of US imperialism, both in Iraq and elsewhere. In a graphic description of the Phillipine occupation, it quotes from a New York Tribune editorial of the time:

'Whether we like it or not, we most go on slaughtering the natives in English fashion, and taking what muddy glory lies in wholesale killing til they have learned to respect our arms. The more difficult task of getting them to respect our intentions will follow' (ibid)

The same dogmatic imperialism remains in US policy today - if we slaughter enough of them, they will learn to respect our values. Winning the hearts and minds of the natives... There is no reason in ranting about the differences between cultures or religions, because cause and effect is universal - if a man behaves in a psychotic fashion towards others there must be reason for his actions, whether it is pure psychosis or the steady drip of fundamentalist values to the subconscious, brought up on hatred of the other. And dont for a second imagine this fundamentalism is restricted to 'them', because we have our own, very real brand - the nation state. I think Mark Twain put it well:

'The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: ‘The King can do no wrong.’ We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had—the individual’s right to oppose both flag and country when he believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it, all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.'

So our own fundamentalism allows us the illusion of values and legality while we destroy both wholesale, globally, and with intent; as for 'their' values, you are once again homogenizing an entire religion into a pigeonhole so small and violently racist it cannot possibly apply to more than a small minority. And until the cause of that particular minority's grievance is investigated, there will always be a half-blind behemoth stumbling down dark allies with a cudgel in hand, swatting at vermin and feverishly wondering how they keep multiplying...

Andy
S3nd K3ys
palavra wrote:


but i don't know any "radical muslim" raped any usa woman.


Oh, that's right. They preferr young boys don't they?


Quote:


i think this is a bigger crime than 9/11.



That doesnt surprise me one bit.
ocalhoun
ibay wrote:

Is there any place left on earth where the USA is not fighting in one way or another?

Canada, England, France, Poland, China, Japan, Cuba, Argentina, Greenland, Italy, India, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, North Dakota, Peru, and Australia, to name a few.
Soulfire
Hrm - it would appear unchecked power. After September 11th, we're so quick to give up freedom in the name of safety.

If you ever watch "V for Vendetta" you will see that people slowly giving up their personal freedoms in the name of security led to a tyrannical dictatorship, which V is fighting against. It's very applicable to today's world.

Remember, remember the 5th of November.
palavra
S3nd K3ys wrote:
palavra wrote:


but i don't know any "radical muslim" raped any usa woman.


Oh, that's right. They preferr young boys don't they?


.

i don't know radical muslims did this kind of things to young usa citizen also.

if you have a personal experience you can tell us Wink
ibay
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Oh, that's right. They preferr young boys don't they?


and where did that happen?

on the other hand, Priests sodomizing children and involved in pornography is not an uncommom thing.
CyanEyed
as to the thread title:

Torture and the US go together like peanut butter and jelly. the world has come to expect nothing more sophisticated from the US
S3nd K3ys
CyanEyed wrote:
as to the thread title:

Torture and the US go together like peanut butter and jelly. the world has come to expect nothing more sophisticated from the US


Yeah, but we know that if we stop before we cut thru their jugular, they might still be able to tell us something. Where as those we're torturing wouldn't stop til the head was rolling around next to the body. Laughing
CyanEyed
S3nd K3ys wrote:
CyanEyed wrote:
as to the thread title:

Torture and the US go together like peanut butter and jelly. the world has come to expect nothing more sophisticated from the US


Yeah, but we know that if we stop before we cut thru their jugular, they might still be able to tell us something. Where as those we're torturing wouldn't stop til the head was rolling around next to the body. Laughing


of course they dont stop, cuz they dont want information. they want attention, but doesnt justify the use of torture.

if somebody kicks u in the balls and u even try to kick back, does that make u any better than him????
S3nd K3ys
CyanEyed wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
CyanEyed wrote:
as to the thread title:

Torture and the US go together like peanut butter and jelly. the world has come to expect nothing more sophisticated from the US


Yeah, but we know that if we stop before we cut thru their jugular, they might still be able to tell us something. Where as those we're torturing wouldn't stop til the head was rolling around next to the body. Laughing


of course they dont stop, cuz they dont want information. they want attention, but doesnt justify the use of torture.

if somebody kicks u in the balls and u even try to kick back, does that make u any better than him????


Self defense? I have no problem with it. Sure beats getting repeatedly kicked in the balls doesn't it? I mean, if every time he kicked me in the balls, I kicked him in the balls twice and slapping his face, do you think he'd keep kicking me in the balls?

If you knew your neighbor had your wife and kid somewhere sodomizing and torturing them, but wouldn't say where, would you let it go or would you find out where he had them?

I'd find out where. Wink

BTW, you might want to consider what the US considers torture vs what people like OBL, Hussain, Nasralla, Almond Dinner Jab and other RIMs consider torture.
runarl
I dont want to be tortured:S Hehe, yeah, but torture is a bad thing, no one should ever experience stuff like that....
Soulfire
ibay wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Oh, that's right. They preferr young boys don't they?


and where did that happen?

on the other hand, Priests sodomizing children and involved in pornography is not an uncommom thing.


Do you know why it's "not uncommon" for a priest? The reality behind the matter is that it's not uncommon for anywhere - any denomination of Church, any religion, teachers, co-workers, etc. It all happens, but it's only publicized when it's about a priest.

I wonder why that may be? Perhaps our liberal media has something against our conservative Catholic Church and wastes all it's time and energy trying to unravel it, completely ignoring the fact that it happens everywhere else, and giving the Church publicity it doesn't want, doesn't need, and shouldn't have to put up with.
cbf-cma
Torture is necesscary to defeat the bad guys. Otherwise, America will fall because the bad guys got off Scott Free. And the Liberal Media doesn't understand this because they don't know the hardcore stuff that's really going down (i.e. dirty bombs, anthrax, uranium from Africa, and invisible submarines). The Liberal Media doesn't even care about family values and saving the lives of fetuses.

When the martians attack us in the year 2012 they will all be surpised and wish they had supported the Patriot Act, NSA eavesdropping, and most of all -- torture.
palavra
cbf-cma wrote:
Torture is necesscary to defeat the bad guys. Otherwise, America will fall because the bad guys got off Scott Free. And the Liberal Media doesn't understand this because they don't know the hardcore stuff that's really going down (i.e. dirty bombs, anthrax, uranium from Africa, and invisible submarines). The Liberal Media doesn't even care about family values and saving the lives of fetuses.

When the martians attack us in the year 2012 they will all be surpised and wish they had supported the Patriot Act, NSA eavesdropping, and most of all -- torture.


then

why don't you declare it in your constitution?

what is the meaning of this hypocricy?
S3nd K3ys
palavra wrote:
cbf-cma wrote:
Torture is necesscary to defeat the bad guys. Otherwise, America will fall because the bad guys got off Scott Free. And the Liberal Media doesn't understand this because they don't know the hardcore stuff that's really going down (i.e. dirty bombs, anthrax, uranium from Africa, and invisible submarines). The Liberal Media doesn't even care about family values and saving the lives of fetuses.

When the martians attack us in the year 2012 they will all be surpised and wish they had supported the Patriot Act, NSA eavesdropping, and most of all -- torture.


then

why don't you declare it in your constitution?

what is the meaning of this hypocricy?


Laughing Laughing Laughing

What is the meaning of this lunacy? Laughing

The Constitution is for, umm, you know... AMERICANS. It's not for un-educated 7th century baby killing barbarians. (Edit: I am implying that the 'bad guys' are baby killing barbarians, so if you're not supportive of the terrorists, I'm not calling you one.)

Also, in case you missed it's intent, it's for AMERICAN CITIZENS and their government's powers and duties, it's not the governing military document on how to treat detainees. Wink
palavra
S3nd K3ys wrote:
[
What is the meaning of this lunacy? Laughing

The Constitution is for, umm, you know... AMERICANS. It's not for un-educated 7th century baby killing barbarians.

:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
[
Americans are barely ready for a women pres, I don't think they're ready for a black one.:
[

if even in this age a nation is not ready for a woman president,yes you are right

it is a barbarian nation. Cool
S3nd K3ys
palavra wrote:


it is a barbarian nation. Cool


I expect an apology or something saying you are joking.
CyanEyed
S3nd K3ys wrote:
palavra wrote:


it is a barbarian nation. Cool


I expect an apology or something saying you are joking.


why? u have the right to express ur opinion and Palavra has his/her right to express opinions as well.

expect one all u like but i highly doubt u gonna get one Wink
S3nd K3ys
CyanEyed wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
palavra wrote:


it is a barbarian nation. Cool


I expect an apology or something saying you are joking.


why? u have the right to express ur opinion and Palavra has his/her right to express opinions as well.

expect one all u like but i highly doubt u gonna get one Wink


I'll get one or he'll change his post. Wink
tidruG
Quote:
Do you know why it's "not uncommon" for a priest? The reality behind the matter is that it's not uncommon for anywhere - any denomination of Church, any religion, teachers, co-workers, etc. It all happens, but it's only publicized when it's about a priest.

I wonder why that may be? Perhaps our liberal media has something against our conservative Catholic Church and wastes all it's time and energy trying to unravel it, completely ignoring the fact that it happens everywhere else, and giving the Church publicity it doesn't want, doesn't need, and shouldn't have to put up with.

You realise that there's a difference between a priest and a paedophile?
People look to priests and religious leaders for inspiration, for motivation and example on how to lead their lives, they don't look at sexual deviants.
Priests indulging in sexual harassment of children, or sodomy or anything else is worse than psychopaths doing that, because you'd expect a psychopath to do that, not a priest. In that regard, it is definitely more shocking for a priest to do so.

Note that I am not saying that it is more wrong for a priest than any other citizen. Child rape is child rape, and it's as bad as as it, irrespective of who the rapist is.

However, don't seek to equate priests with psyhopaths and sexual miscreants.
babumuchhala
@S3nd K3ys
No Aplologies. In fact, I expect an apology for this
Quote:
The Constitution is for, umm, you know... AMERICANS. It's not for un-educated 7th century baby killing barbarians.

No one's that dumb to understand what you mean.

And the Barbarian tag thus to some extent (not 100% correct though) thus fit.

Just, a note, that American's have officially killed more Innocent Iraqi's than by Saddam Hussain and his regime in some 20 to 25 years.
S3nd K3ys
babumuchhala wrote:
@S3nd K3ys
No Aplologies. In fact, I expect an apology for this
Quote:
The Constitution is for, umm, you know... AMERICANS. It's not for un-educated 7th century baby killing barbarians.

No one's that dumb to understand what you mean.

And the Barbarian tag thus to some extent (not 100% correct though) thus fit.



I expect an apology. I qualified my statement, (see the edit), and expect an apology.

I also expect proof for this...
Quote:

Just, a note, that American's have officially killed more Innocent Iraqi's than by Saddam Hussain and his regime in some 20 to 25 years.


or I would like it removed. Wink
babumuchhala
S3nd K3ys wrote:
babumuchhala wrote:
@S3nd K3ys
No Aplologies. In fact, I expect an apology for this
Quote:
The Constitution is for, umm, you know... AMERICANS. It's not for un-educated 7th century baby killing barbarians.

No one's that dumb to understand what you mean.

And the Barbarian tag thus to some extent (not 100% correct though) thus fit.


I expect an apology. I qualified my statement, (see the edit), and expect an apology.

It wont come from me for sure.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
I also expect proof for this...
Quote:

Just, a note, that American's have officially killed more Innocent Iraqi's than by Saddam Hussain and his regime in some 20 to 25 years.


or I would like it removed. Wink
Here, you go
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/10/20737/582

Its also got links to Wall Street Journal, New York Times & Washington Post.
S3nd K3ys
babumuchhala wrote:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/10/20737/582


KOS??
Laughing Laughing Laughing

Ok, lets play biased links... but first, the Times makes a common mistake by lumping civilians, insurgents, and Iraqi Police and Army units all together and simply referring to them as "civilians."

In fact, the study makes absolutely no effort to differentiate between civilians and insurgents, Police and army. All the researchers asked were the number of dead over the last 3 years. So explain how that is the number killed by Americans?

Take a look at http://thereligionofpeace.com or http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar.htm and you'll see that 1) Americans didn't kill them, radical islamics did, 2) at least 75,000 Iraqi civilians (and as many as 178,000) have been SAVED by the US invasion, and 3) that 600,000 number is bogus as it counts ALL deaths and doesn't say who killed them.

After that take a look at http://www.redstate.com/blogs/rick_moran/2006/oct/11/a_most_ghoulish_debate for an expination of how your numbers are flawed. Seriously flawed.

Quote:
In addition, the study includes deaths that the researchers have arbitrarily determined were caused by the invasion but not caused by violence. If they are using the same criteria as the 2004 study, some of these causes of death include:

* Malnourishment due to bad economic conditions as a result of the invasion.

* Illness due to degraded health care infrastructure.

* Deaths due to domestic violence.

* Deaths due to criminal activity unrelated to the insurgency.

* And “... civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.”


Wink
Bockman
Unfortunately K3ys, seems that every source that disagrees with your position is "biased".

Also, looking at your post:
Quote:
Ok, lets play biased links...


I'll assume you are admitting that http://thereligionofpeace.com is a biased source of information (if you're not, you should...).

Looking at your posts in this section and at that webpage, i see almost the same kind of propaganda...

You ought to start listening to others too... and stop forcing us with your point of view because we are also capable of reading the news (the ones WE don't consider biased) and form our own opinions.

Be Well Cool
babumuchhala
Well dear, you can say that those Radicals killed them. But, wasnt it the US's responsibility to protect them, since they took control of the country.

In fact now, their state of living is much worse. Very erractic Power supply, Bad Roads, poor water suply than before. I did say thats paying too much, for the Iraqi's.

Frankly Iraq was a better to place live in under saddam, than under US. Agreed now they have freedom of speech and thats very important, but still the trade off is way too big, atleast they were sure of they did live when they got out of the house.
S3nd K3ys
Bockman wrote:
Unfortunately K3ys, seems that every source that disagrees with your position is "biased".

Also, looking at your post:
Quote:
Ok, lets play biased links...


I'll assume you are admitting that http://thereligionofpeace.com is a biased source of information (if you're not, you should...).


It absolutely IS biased, that's why I put them there. That's why I said I'd like to play BIASED LINKS.

Also, the links I provided in that locked thread I think you're talking about does not have any links to thereligionofpeace.com. Those links, if you looked at them at all, are from OTHER sources, some biased, most not. Some even biased FOR radical islam, which are there just to show the point.

Here's a partial list



http://www.jpost.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
http://haaretz.com/
http://www.iht.com/
http://www.boston.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://today.reuters.co.uk/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
http://www.sudantribune.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.sfgate.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/
http://www.iol.co.za/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://memri.org/
http://www.ynetnews.com/
http://www.jpost.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.asianews.it/
http://english.people.com.cn/
http://news.yahoo.com/
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/
http://www.boston.com/
Shocked ---> http://www.cair-net.org/ Laughing Yep, that's biased all right...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
http://news.independent.co.uk/
http://www.latimes.com/
http://www.chron.com/
http://www.christiantoday.com/
http://www.twincities.com/
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/
http://www.canada.com/
http://www.gulfnews.com/
http://www.news.com.au/
http://news.yahoo.com/
http://www.adnki.com/
http://www.memritv.org/
http://cbs3.com/
http://today.reuters.com/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
http://today.reuters.co.uk/
http://www.kuna.net.kw/
http://newsbusters.org/
http://www.breitbart.com/
http://www.acctv.com.au/
palavra
S3nd K3ys wrote:
palavra wrote:


it is a barbarian nation. Cool


I expect an apology or something saying you are joking.


i didn't mean americans are barbarian.

i am sorry if i offended any americans and you.

i don't like when anyone offends my nation.
and
i don't want to do the same to any nation.
because person is different , nation is different .
although i don't like the foreign policy of bush administration(i think american foreign policy is very arrogant), i don't have any bad feeling for american nation.


up to now ,i know only 20-25 american citizens personally.
i liked some of them , i didn't like some of them
but i did't hate any of them and i can not say even one of them was a racist or sexist.

i only wanted to tell if anyone believe a woman can not be president like stoneage tribes used to believe , this person is a barbaric person.
Exander
Quote:
Frankly Iraq was a better to place live in under saddam, than under US. Agreed now they have freedom of speech and thats very important, but still the trade off is way too big,


Well, sorry were not working fast enough for you. Taking a dictator out of power, fighting an insurgency, protecting citizens, rebuilding infrastructure, helping to form a new government, recruiting and training an entirely new Army and police force...and more...while under fire...is apparently something that you believe only takes a year or so. Is that right? Clean cut operation, no casualties? If it's going to be difficult to do the right thing, better to just give up yes?

Let me guess, you work for the UN?
haak_heu
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I
Do you honestly think the Radical Islamic Muslims give a crap about YOUR rights while they saw off your head and rape your wife


see who is saying that an american Laughing

see the figures of rape in america
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/documents/mvtheftmain.doc
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html
http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm
http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/ohe/library/violence/statistics.htm
http://www.fcasv.org/2005_Web/Statistics.htm


Rape is a serious problem in the United States today. The United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 4 times higher than that of Germany, 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan.

it seems they like it to be raped and do rape
and see muslim world satitics

well reply with links

and links are not biased they are of your own government and people
and there are alot un reported too

in iraq well see this
http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/07/us_soldiers_gang_rape.jpg

and site is hacked by your americans so that world dont see truth

shame on you , shame on bush suporter and this army ....
Bikerman
Exander wrote:
Well, sorry were not working fast enough for you. Taking a dictator out of power, fighting an insurgency, protecting citizens, rebuilding infrastructure, helping to form a new government, recruiting and training an entirely new Army and police force...and more...while under fire...is apparently something that you believe only takes a year or so. Is that right? Clean cut operation, no casualties? If it's going to be difficult to do the right thing, better to just give up yes?

Or, put another way :
Taking a former ally out of power to leave a power vacuum, creating an insurgency, rendering citizens liable to killing, rape and kidnap, destroying infrastructure on a massive scale, trying to ensure a US friendly puppet regime whilst not allowing a Shi'ite majority any real power, trying to rebuild the army and civil police force after having dismembered both, and more, whilst firing at insurgents in their own country and calling them terrorists for resisting a foreign invasion. Ensuring a long term military presence on the same model as Saudi Arabia, and squandering huge quantities of Iraq's oil money on ill-managed, politically controlled and assigned, hugely profitable contracts to friends, colleagues and associates of the presidential clique.

PS - I don't work for the UN or any other related agency...

Chris
Exander
Quote:
Or, put another way :
Taking a former ally out of power to leave a power vacuum, creating an insurgency, rendering citizens liable to killing, rape and kidnap, destroying infrastructure on a massive scale, trying to ensure a US friendly puppet regime whilst not allowing a Shi'ite majority any real power, trying to rebuild the army and civil police force after having dismembered both, and more, whilst firing at insurgents in their own country and calling them terrorists for resisting a foreign invasion.


Clever, all you did is basically say what I said, but blamed the U.S. for everything. Frankly, I'm not surprised...it's the trendy thing to do these days, always fashionable eh Chris?

I suppose you're one of those people who would like to choose between the lesser of two evils. Seems like you would be. You know, leave Saddam in power because hey, he was a vicious mass-murdering dictator (that we played politics with and supported him against Iran, horrible idea I admit) who almost evryone thought was developing weapons of mass destruction, but he was a lovable vicious mass murdering dictator. There was no insurgency under Saddam, because dead people can't revolt.
So who's to blame for Sunni / Shiite violence? Well, I don't know, that's a tough one, usually when two people hate each other and kill each other, I immediately blame the U.S..
Also, you make a generalization about insurgents "in their own country"...don't forget that many are foreign, though no one has been able to provide any hard numbers.

Quote:
...and squandering huge quantities of Iraq's oil money on ill-managed, politically controlled and assigned, hugely profitable contracts to friends, colleagues and associates of the presidential clique.


I would like to see a link to a reputable source. An oft screeched accusation that I've never seen backed up.

Quote:
PS - I don't work for the UN or any other related agency...


I didn't think you did, they usually offer a solution, even if they are powerless to enforce it.
S3nd K3ys
haak_heu wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I
Do you honestly think the Radical Islamic Muslims give a crap about YOUR rights while they saw off your head and rape your wife


see who is saying that an american Laughing

...

Rape is a serious problem in the United States today


It absolutely IS a problem here. But our problem stops where we don't try to PUBLICALLY and BLATENTLY justify the actions of the rapists by putting the blame on the women and classifying them as "a piece of meat to be covered up so it doen't get raped". Wink
Bikerman
Exander wrote:

Clever, all you did is basically say what I said, but blamed the U.S. for everything. Frankly, I'm not surprised...it's the trendy thing to do these days, always fashionable eh Chris?
No, it's something quite different and more spontaneous. We call it wit. If you knew me better you would know that trends and fashion are the things least likely to influence me.
Quote:
I suppose you're one of those people who would like to choose between the lesser of two evils. Seems like you would be. You know, leave Saddam in power because hey, he was a vicious mass-murdering dictator (that we played politics with and supported him against Iran, horrible idea I admit) who almost evryone thought was developing weapons of mass destruction, but he was a lovable vicious mass murdering dictator. There was no insurgency under Saddam, because dead people can't revolt.


I am in favour of international law as it was, which states that the only valid reason to invade another country is via UN Mandate or in self defence.

As for Saddam, listen sonny, I was protesting against Saddam in 1985 in front of the US embassy in London. At that time, you may remember, the UK, US and France were supplying him with biological and chemical warefare agents to help him beat Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. In other words I was protesting Saddam probably before most had even heard the name!

As for WMD, nobody I know thought he had significant WMD. We all read the weapons inspectors reports and the full text of the intelligence briefings available. Those who surf headlines and scan a tabloid may have believed the story, but non of my friends or fellow protestors even gave it much thought. The idea that Iraq was a threat to any western country was a sick joke at the time since it was reeling from sanctions, still terminally weakened from the previous war and economically crippled. Only very stupid, the very gullible, or those with an agenda, believed the 'WMD means Saddam is a threat' garbage that was hyped and spouted at the time.

Finally the insurgency crack. The last insurgency was by the Kurds at the behest of, yep, good old Bush Senior. He encouraged them to rise up against Saddam after gulf-war 1. He then completely failed to offer any support and the result was the massacre outlined in the following links...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boyntonweb.net%2Finsights%2Fglobal03-03.pdf&ei=YnFHRa2zNsDuRJuBjc8O&usg=__irDO777sXpHOpDqbQRTf5932VHU=&sig2=TulN8Ce2XPMdaJGOoizQ5w
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/18/i_ins.01.html
Quote:
So who's to blame for Sunni / Shiite violence? Well, I don't know, that's a tough one, usually when two people hate each other and kill each other, I immediately blame the U.S.


Yes, that is a safe bet. If it is more than 40 years ago, however, the UK are probably a better bet. It is how global politics have been conducted this century and before....balance potential opponents and set them against other antagonists to keep both occupied and unable to turn on the overlord....Standard Operating Procedure, developed and refined by the UK in China and India over generations.

Quote:
Also, you make a generalization about insurgents "in their own country"...don't forget that many are foreign, though no one has been able to provide any hard numbers.


So how do you know that many are foreign ? This has been said since day 1 and it was bull then so why should it be true now ? I have no doubt, as it happens, that increasing numbers of foreign fighters ARE in Iraq. The certain truth, however, is that they were not there pre-invasion.

Also I made no generalisation, I stated :
Quote:
whilst firing at insurgents in their own country and calling them terrorists for resisting a foreign invasion

That is accurate and not at all generalised.
Quote:

I would like to see a link to a reputable source. An oft screeched accusation that I've never seen backed up.

No problemo....
Let's start with the audit carried out by your own Congress shall we :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1765048,00.html

Other articles I have to hand.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1934663,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1881071,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1933778,00.html

The UN published...
http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0271-22884/U-N-Board-Says-U.html
Boston Globe has this
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/04/16/us_firms_suspected_of_bilking_iraq_funds/
Washington Post has this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401237_pf.html

Corpwatch has this:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13262

Academic publications include :
http://libraries.ou.edu/eresources/catalog/index.asp?catstring=/uhtbin/cgisirsi/sy2FJV8XL0/BIZZELL/5770055/123?searchdata1=2642431{ckey}
and
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=15&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.ourfuture.org%2Freports%2Freport-war-profiteers.pdf&ei=FnBHRdiGK5PQRuWXgcwO&usg=__f72wnNHTrgdvdf5QhWbMapCKxPI=&sig2=XOgs8NQjuUK0BqlSn2W9iw

That should be a start for you.....
Quote:

I didn't think you did, they usually offer a solution, even if they are powerless to enforce it.


The UN cannot offer solutions as anyone who understands the organisation is aware. It has no standing military capability and relies completely on the US and European powers for it's troops as well as other resources and mandates. If the US vetos a resolution (as it often does) it rarely gets reported in ANY media and yet when it cannot send peacekeepers to a region (because the US or Europe will not supply them) then see how quick the shouts of 'Useless' 'Farce' 'Toothless Tiger' and the rest are raised by that same media.

Regards
Chris
Exander
Once again, due to the sheer inundation of information that you provided, it will take me some time to respond to this...as I would very much prefer to respond in kind.
Bikerman
Exander wrote:
Once again, due to the sheer inundation of information that you provided, it will take me some time to respond to this...as I would very much prefer to respond in kind.


I only do it to try and offer a reasonably varied (if not balanced) set of sources, not to be an awkwark sod...honest Smile
haak_heu
S3nd K3ys wrote:
haak_heu wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I
Do you honestly think the Radical Islamic Muslims give a crap about YOUR rights while they saw off your head and rape your wife


see who is saying that an american Laughing

...

Rape is a serious problem in the United States today


It absolutely IS a problem here. But our problem stops where we don't try to PUBLICALLY and BLATENTLY justify the actions of the rapists by putting the blame on the women and classifying them as "a piece of meat to be covered up so it doen't get raped". Wink


hey so you said that rape is very serous in your country and you are part of it right so your whole society is rapiest ....
saying yourself Super power and can not counter a problem and it is increasing dramitcially , spending billions and billions of billions dollar to kill and explore universe but can not save people from hunger in your own country racism is big problem in your country , saying yourself that you are worlds greatest democratic country and support worlds dictators ...
alot of people die due to guns in America so you spend billions of dollar on those guns manufacturing and can not help those in katrina ..what is your
government doing and what are you doing ... supporting and talking only against others see first in you country and get out of that false patriotism ...be a true patriotic.
Star Wars Fanatic
Well, we need tortue to gain information, however, there are other ways to gain information, we could send men to infiltrate Al Khada, but wait, to get high enough to get good information, they would have to do some pretty horrible stuff, murder, shooting at US troops, hmm, we can't do that...

Well I guess we should just lay down and surrender, I'm sure that those Al Khada bastards won't harm us, they will just send another plane into New York, heading towards the ground...

So which is it?

Tortue... Or another 9/11...


And I don't see what you have against tortue, when they tortue people who kill Americans for sport, they aren't abusing your liberty at all. In fact, they are protecting you...
diverden
I can see both sides but it is hard to believe that anyone who has been held and questioned by the military and/or CIA, is in a military court and will have military counsel, is getting a fair trial. Maybe we don't have to be fair and if that is the case, let's just be honest and say these are bad guys, who do not deserve a fair trial and hang them or shoot them or whatever.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/04/terrorism.detainees.ap/index.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh -- but undefined -- interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks," the Justice Department wrote.

The documents, which were first reported by The Washington Post, were filed in opposition to a request that terror suspect Majid Khan should be given access to an attorney. Khan, 26, immigrated from Pakistan and graduated high school in Maryland.

According to documents filed on his behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2003. During more than three years in CIA custody, Khan was subjected to interrogation techniques that defense attorneys suggest amounted to torture.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under a law passed last month, they are to be tried before special military commissions and may not have access to civilian courts.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is among several advocacy groups challenging that law. They say the Constitution guarantees prisoners a right to challenge their detention.

The Justice Department argues that civilian courts no longer have jurisdiction to intervene in the case. They say keeping details about the CIA program secret is essential because national security is at stake.

"Information obtained through the program has provided the United States with one of the most useful tools in combating terrorist threats to the national security," the government argued in court documents.

"It has shed light on probable targets and likely methods for attacks on the United States, has led to the disruption of terrorist plots against the United States and its allies, and has gathered information that has played a role in the capture and questioning of senior al Qaeda operatives," it said.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, responded in court documents Friday that there is no evidence Khan has classified information. Gutierrez accused the administration of using national secrecy concerns to "conceal illegal or embarrassing executive conduct."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has not indicated when he will rule.
Star Wars Fanatic
Well one thing, the constitution doesn't give them any rights at all, they are terrorists from Iraq, if they were US citizens it would be very different.
haak_heu
diverden wrote:
I can see both sides but it is hard to believe that anyone who has been held and questioned by the military and/or CIA, is in a military court and will have military counsel, is getting a fair trial. Maybe we don't have to be fair and if that is the case, let's just be honest and say these are bad guys, who do not deserve a fair trial and hang them or shoot them or whatever.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/04/terrorism.detainees.ap/index.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh -- but undefined -- interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks," the Justice Department wrote.

The documents, which were first reported by The Washington Post, were filed in opposition to a request that terror suspect Majid Khan should be given access to an attorney. Khan, 26, immigrated from Pakistan and graduated high school in Maryland.

According to documents filed on his behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2003. During more than three years in CIA custody, Khan was subjected to interrogation techniques that defense attorneys suggest amounted to torture.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under a law passed last month, they are to be tried before special military commissions and may not have access to civilian courts.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is among several advocacy groups challenging that law. They say the Constitution guarantees prisoners a right to challenge their detention.

The Justice Department argues that civilian courts no longer have jurisdiction to intervene in the case. They say keeping details about the CIA program secret is essential because national security is at stake.

"Information obtained through the program has provided the United States with one of the most useful tools in combating terrorist threats to the national security," the government argued in court documents.

"It has shed light on probable targets and likely methods for attacks on the United States, has led to the disruption of terrorist plots against the United States and its allies, and has gathered information that has played a role in the capture and questioning of senior al Qaeda operatives," it said.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, responded in court documents Friday that there is no evidence Khan has classified information. Gutierrez accused the administration of using national secrecy concerns to "conceal illegal or embarrassing executive conduct."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has not indicated when he will rule.


what a justified answer that they wel show how agencies work or they well told that what agencies have done regarding torture to them ...
how you peopl bend truth to make lie a truth but TRUTH is TRUTH.
Moonspider
Worthwhile arguments, but the same arguments we have during every war. Far more troubling legal questions were raised during the American Civil War and to a lesser extent in World War II.

These current issues look like traffic disputes compared to President Lincoln's activities during the American Civil War. I'm sure the United States constitution and legal system will survive this period as well.

Respectfully,
M
Related topics
Rate us at ClickHereFree!
Kissinger: US Supports Cross-Straits Dialogue
What would it be like to die?
PlayStation 3
Abortion or Murder?
Torture : It's a no-brainer
President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on Torture
Torture your mother?
Should SUICIDE be ilegal?
saw 4
US Torture
US soldier suicides over torture, Iraq
US interrogators may have killed dozens
Why God had to tortured himself to forgive us?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.