81 yr old is visited by the Secret Service, after claiming "wrong person hung in Saddam's trial."

Originally posted by neformore
You mean like refusing to sign up to treaties on international law?

If you mean by giving power to an international court over U.S. courts you are asking to give up the sovereignty of the United States...

Originally posted by neformore
Holding people without charge indefinitely in a detention centre that is set up on occupied land in a foreign country that does not want it there?

Those people were caught attacking U.S. soldiers, setting up road bombs ... They were not wearing anything that would set them appart from civilians, under the Geneva convention "prisoners of war" have to follow the rules of war, identify themselves appart from civilians and always wear their weapons in the open.

Insurgents/terrorists hide among civilians, and have used civilians as shields.. under the Geneva Convention those people being held are not "prisoners of war", hence the term "enemy combatant", hence they are not prisoners of war.

Here is a little bit of the history of Guantanamo Bay.
www.npr.org...

in 1963 it was clear why the base was still needed there...and the same Communist regime that installed nuclear missiles pointing at the United States is still in power in Cuba and is still forming alliances with other Communist regimes to destroy the United States....

and BTW...the people in Cuba don't want the base there?....

In 1991, when there was a flood of Haitian refugees arriving at the base, thousands of Cubans began joining them and their numbers grew to 45,000 Cubans... The Cubans were accepted into the U.S. because they were escaping from a dictatorship. I assure you if more Cubans would have been able to get in, there wouldn't be almost any Cuban in the Island now...

Originally posted by neformore
Torturing prisoners taken from the battlefield?
Taking photos of prisoners who are having their human rights violated?

Nice try....NOT..... Just like in any country and in any military there are people that are "less than people" and do such things to others. Those people are now in jail, serving their sentences. If there are more then those will also go to jail.

Originally posted by neformore
Removing people from their country of origion in secret flights passing illegally without clearance through other nations?

Yes, the US Presidential Administration and military covers itself in glory by doing all those things, doesn't it?

Oh right...i guess other countries which fund and hide terrorists will willingly give up those people who have attacked the United States or fund terrorists to attack the United States?...

Or i guess you think that because certain people who have helped in attacks against the United States, or hire people to make attacks against the United States should be left alone just because they pay off some other countries to hide them?....

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Muaddib]

i find this very funny how they can say an 81 year old man is a threat to bush.

for christ sake he is 81 years old, what is he suppose to do? run all the way to the president white hosue and do something? i doubt he could do that.


but i find it very funny how YOUNG SECRET SERVICE can read into something and say infer such a wrong meaning.. sad...

Muadibb

If you mean by giving power to an international court over U.S. courts you are asking to give up the sovereignty of the United States...

I thought that was a done deal, when we allowed the Fed to insert its feeding tubes into our bloodstream?



Nationalism is petty anyway. Not that I'm a one-worlder, I just don't think national loyalty should be set above our loyalty to family and good sense. Patriotism used to be a dirty word, and God willing, it will be again.

Those people were caught attacking U.S. soldiers, setting up road bombs ... They were not wearing anything that would set them appart from civilians, under the Geneva convention "prisoners of war" have to follow the rules of war, identify themselves appart from civilians and always wear their weapons in the open.

That's not true. Not everyone in Gitmo was caught setting a bomb or shooting at soldiers. Some of them were turned in by neighbors or rivals, in exchange for a cash reward. We have no idea if they did anything wrong, but we're holding them just the same. Or maybe those are the folks who were released early? I honestly don't know, do you?

As far as not wearing anything to set them apart from civilians, maybe that's because they are/were civilians?

Insurgents/terrorists hide among civilians, and have used civilians as shields.. under the Geneva Convention those people being held are not "prisoners of war", hence the term "enemy combatant", hence they are not prisoners of war.

Semantics do not a defense make. Just because they're conducting a guerlla war doesn't change the fact that they're human beings who deserve fair treatment by their captors. Forget the convention, and consider ages-old standards for the honorable treatment of captives. We should treat them the way we want our soldiers treated, should they be captured (and yes, I know that won't happen, but that's not the point).

Most importantly they deserve a trial, because that's what is supposed to set this country apart from the rabble rousers - a justice system. Not that's it's just, but at least we owe them the illusion of fairness, which is really not so much to ask.

Nice try....NOT..... Just like in any country and in any military there are people that are "less than people" and do such things to others. Those people are now in jail, serving their sentences. If there are more then those will also go to jail.

Well said.

Unfortunately, that doesn't account for the fact that simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, stress positions, and other forms of abuse were sanctioned by the highest offices of this nation. Just because Rummy didn't issue an order authorizing them to scramble detainees into a big naked pile and point at them with mocking glee, doesn't mean that he and his superiors weren't responsible for the conditions.

We set up conditions that were condusive to dehumanization of men who may have committed no crime but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Without a proper trial, without giving them a venue to defend themselves, there's no way to know.

The only reason we took them was to turn them, and for the most part that has not worked, so why don't we just let them go?