Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on June 23, 2005, 07:31:40 PM
-
linky (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/23/news/detain.php)
So... the U.S. won't allow independent inspectors into Gitmo. Until the current admin decides to play along with the rest of the world, our credibility will continue to suffer.
If we're doing nothing wrong, we've nothing to fear from an inspection. It's high time we took the high road, IMHO.
-
Yes it is!
-
not when the people that desire the inspectors have no desire to seek justice for those detained or confirmation of any type of truth.
I truely beleive there are those out there that want nothing more than to make the US look bad. Gitmo could be club med for habib and we'd still get a bad report from "independent inspectors" and world condemnation to follow.
-
i think we need "independent inspectors" to check out mainland US prisons, not the club med of gitmo.
-
Yeah, let's bow down to a UN commision who's members are from nations with horrible human rights violations.
No need to let these guys inspect anything except maybe their own countries violations.
The prisoners at GITMO are getting better treatment and food than the guards in some cases.
Also, they are lawfully held as enemy combatants and can be held without representation for the duration of the war.
-
just wait till the big one goes off. after that no one will care about gitmo. Least not those left holding the ball....
-
I'd like to read the reports on Iraq (under Saddam); Iran; North Korea; Syria; Zimbabwe; and so on, to make sure these guys are properly qualified to do the job.
Does anyone have any links on their reports from those countries?
-
These people detained are unlawful enemy combatants. The US has the legal right to detain them for the length of the hostilities.
Even though they do not fall under the protection for lawful enemy combatants, we still treat them that way.
All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312
-
Get Mo?
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/7109603/101844880.jpg)
How about a shirt? ;) (I've always said that Rush was pure entertainment)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/7109603/101845407.jpg)
-
Um no... the 'international community' can stay out, thanks.
-
Deleted
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Other than the near certainty that the dedicated A-Q prisoners will do anything to hurt the US, including fabricating tales of incredible punishment (and you know some will), I think it's a good idea.
I'd even invite the newsies to spend a night in the compound in a cell and see how it goes. Bible or Quran, their choice. ;)
Take a group of 20 through, let 10 be picked by the UN and 10 by the Bush admin.
Then we can have a Jane Curtain/Dan Akroyd "Point Counterpoint" shows after it's over.
Both sides get their shills, we get entertained. What do you think?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Other than the near certainty that the dedicated A-Q prisoners will do anything to hurt the US, including fabricating tales of incredible punishment (and you know some will), I think it's a good idea.
I'd even invite the newsies to spend a night in the compound in a cell and see how it goes. Bible or Quran, their choice. ;)
Take a group of 20 through, let 10 be picked by the UN and 10 by the Bush admin.
Then we can have a Jane Curtain/Dan Akroyd "Point Counterpoint" shows after it's over.
Both sides get their shills, we get entertained. What do you think?
LMAO! "Jane, you ignorant Git..."
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
LMAO! "Jane, you ignorant Git..."
AHHHH that one went WAY over my head till you said that. Classic :lol :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I truely beleive there are those out there that want nothing more than to make the US look bad. Gitmo could be club med for habib and we'd still get a bad report from "independent inspectors" and world condemnation to follow.
Then look at it another way... this is an opportunity for the U.S. to look good. ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
These people detained are unlawful enemy combatants. The US has the legal right to detain them for the length of the hostilities.
[/URL]
This is not relevant.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This is not relevant.
It is when you take into context of what I said in the next sentence, which you left out.
Basically, I said the US is treating them as POWs ( not abusing them) under the Geneva convention, even though we don't have too, as they are unlawful enemy combatants.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Basically, I said the US is treating them as POWs under the Geneva convention, even though we don't have too, as they are unlawful enemy combatants.
So... the inspectors will agree with this or not. What's to lose? The media is having a field day with Gitmo prisoner treatment anyway. It can't hurt.
-
Well, I see what you are getting at Sandman. The thing is, we don't have anything to gain, only the risk of having them file a false, biased report based on what the prisoners tell them and taken as fact. It wouldn't be objective, in my opinion.
-
jebus jobus n mary BF u really tripped the mod squads trigger there. and I agree, let the inspectors in and have lots of film taken. those guys are being coddled in guantanamo. it will surely serve as an incentive for others to put aside their jihaddish ways, surrender and join them.
-
Would anyone accuse the U.N of being biased if it was a favorable report?
Do you believe we have something to hide?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Would anyone accuse the U.N of being biased if it was a favorable report?
Do you believe we have something to hide?
First of all, I couldn't care less about anything the UN would say or do.
And I believe we have nothing to hide and nothing to prove. Keep the stinking UN commision on human rights out. They are not relevent.
-
are they from the same ilk that think america leads the world in human rights abuses? america is the greatest threat to world peace?
those folks are lucky to be out of range, afaic.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Would anyone accuse the U.N of being biased if it was a favorable report?
Do you believe we have something to hide?
yes,
There is no way the US would get out of inspections unscathed in the world court of opinion. We could feeding givinb habib unseeded grapes from a virgins bellybutton crack and the world would still paint gitmo as a "gulag" of sorts.
Think about it. Up untill Abu Gharib sleep deprivation was perfectly exceptable means of extracting information. Now it is torture. Ask anyone who's ever had their fingernails ripped out by needle nosed pliers if they'd preferr to have panties put on their head and I'm sure the answer wouldn't be too much of a suprise.
But enough on that I don't want to get off subject too much. I just think that the US has way too many "wolf in sheep's clothing" type "friends" out their and there's no way we can win.
These "prisoners" have more world sympothy than all the beheaded victoms in Iraq combined.
-
Well, it's OK if they behead Amreekans. The world expects that and doesn't even attempt to hold them to a higher standard.
But we're talking about sleep deprivation here! That's just not right.
BTW, Guns, when you went through E&E, how long did they sleep deprive you? I got a nice 48 hour taste of it. Not much but enough to make my eyeballs a touch scratchy.
Of course, it ruined me for the rest of my life and I never was able to do any job after that.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, I see what you are getting at Sandman. The thing is, we don't have anything to gain, only the risk of having them file a false, biased report based on what the prisoners tell them and taken as fact. It wouldn't be objective, in my opinion.
it is much harder to be biased when everything is transparent and in the clear and can be proven by footage and interviews.
i think that those who say that the concern is about bias are wrong. the concern is that there is impropriety...when that the case best way to handle it is to be transparent and forthcoming.
what we need is to show the world that we are what we think we are. good people. we had no problem showing our good deeds with the iraqi prisoners in the first gulf war...it helped us.
if we are not doing the right thing? well then we will just have to accept that we have made a mistake and own up to it.
we have nothing to lose unless we do in fact have something to hide.
awful hard to argue that really.
its a reasonable conclusion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
First of all, I couldn't care less about anything the UN would say or do.
Ahem... go read some of your posts from the last year or two.
I believe you have stated that one of the reasons that the U.S. was justified in invading Iraq was their failure to comply with U.N. sanctions.
I assume that this is a change of heart. ;)
-
Who cares what the 'world' thinks?
and, just what remarkable act of compassion on our part towards detainees would 'change' it?
The world press can take a hike.. they wouldn't give us 'positive press' regardless of what we do or why. Find one example where the 'world press' in question has EVER given us a fair shake?
Lastly, any marginal benefit gained in the world press by displaying 'club gitmo's' inner workings would simply convince the insurgents and terrorists that they are correct, we are weak, and they have no worries if incarcerated.
I'd rather the folks still at large and on our lists know that when we get our hands on 'em we're gonna make 'em sing.. not give 'em a new kidney, a dental plan, fruit (2 kinds), double vegtables, rice and jello three times a day.
-
Compare and contrast...
"We told you. The prisoners are well cared for. Now go away."
"An independent investigator said so. The prisoners are well cared for. Now go away."
Press? They're not supposed to be satisfied, ever. The primary function of the press is to be critical of the government.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... go read some of your posts from the last year or two.
I believe you have stated that one of the reasons that the U.S. was justified in invading Iraq was their failure to comply with U.N. sanctions.
I assume that this is a change of heart. ;)
No change of heart. The UN has always been useless and only magnified that by refusing to enforce it's own resolutions against Iraq, thus justifying US action.
-
If there's nothing untoward going on at gitmo , why hide it ? not letting an inspection team in will only make the accusations of mistreatment all the more believable.......
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I'd like to read the reports on Iraq (under Saddam); Iran; North Korea; Syria; Zimbabwe; and so on, to make sure these guys are properly qualified to do the job.
Does anyone have any links on their reports from those countries?
I were digging little bit, but i found something else.
Since when is US presence in Iraq part of UN ?
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cat/us-statereport2005.html#part2
As of April 1, 2005, MNF-I was detaining approximately 10,000 persons in Iraq. The vast majority of the detainee population is composed of individuals who are held for imperative reasons of security, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1546. In addition to security internees, the MNF-I holds a small number of enemy prisoners of war (EPWs) and, on behalf of the ITG, a number of persons suspected of violating Iraqi criminal laws.
Is that document trying to say, that US is doing good job for UN, while UN is supposed to be mastermind, via their resolutions ?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This is not relevant.
No. World opinion of the US is not relevent.
One might go further to say....
The UN is not relevent.
Even if GITMO was the bad place the leftists are making it out to be. Don't you think we'd clean up for the inpectors so it looked good? So what would an independent inspection accomplish? Nothing really if you think about it.
-
the UN? Why?
Time to kick the legs out from under the UN in my opinion.
lazs
-
Have not yet seen even a little reason to let a single inspector into the place.. ever.
And as long as we don't let any inspectors in there, then the insurgents and terrorists will continue to have something to fear.
This is a GOOD thing. Hope we continue to leak horrible stories of torture.. the 'three squares & double vegtables' kinder and gentler terrorist debriefs have gotta stop!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Press? They're not supposed to be satisfied, ever. The primary function of the press is to be critical of the government.
WRONG. The job of the press is to REPORT the TRUTH. That is where the press has gone astray. They don't REPORT the TRUTH, they CREATE STORIES. The bias in the press has made the press a joke, and the backlash is becoming evident. Soon, no one will believe anything printed in the mainstream media unless they've already seen it or heard it themsleves from a more reliable source. In their hunger to get the scoop and further their agenda, they've become blinded by their own ambitions and bias.
-
^^
^^
^^
^^
^^
What he said...yep!
-
Gotta agree with Virgil on that one as well.
-
Truth is relative. The media reports facts, opinions, and sometimes mere speculation.
This will never change.
As for me, I want the media to be biased and critical of the government at all times. The Founding Fathers wanted it this way.
For a historical alternative to this, one need not look further than Germany, circa 1939 or so.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Truth is relative. The media reports facts, opinions, and sometimes mere speculation.
This will never change.
As for me, I want the media to be biased and critical of the government at all times. The Founding Fathers wanted it this way.
For a historical alternative to this, one need not look further than Germany, circa 1939 or so.
No, truth is NOT relative. Far from it.
I'm not so sure the Founding Fathers envisioned what we have today that passes for the "press".
Reasoned and fact based dissent is one thing, dissent for the sake of dissent is quite another.
The press should be tasked with the reporting of facts, not making them up to suit their agenda, or choosing them to fit their bias. What you propose defeats the true purpose of the press, and perverts it beyond usefullness.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, truth is NOT relative.
Yes it is.
No it's not.
Yes it is.
No it's not.
:p
-
:rofl
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Soon, no one will believe anything printed in the mainstream media unless they've already seen it or heard it themsleves from a more reliable source. [/B]
Like Tv ?
Most funny thing about Tv is, that more people consider it more reliable and more truth only because of picture.
There is no better source of informations that Tv with "proper comments".
Do you remember thos pictures from pre-war afghanistan, where you could see woman in black cadors and commentator said..... woman have wear this. Thats horrible :)
-
lada... what do you know about anything American much less American TV?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
WRONG. The job of the press is to REPORT the TRUTH. That is where the press has gone astray. They don't REPORT the TRUTH, they CREATE STORIES. The bias in the press has made the press a joke, and the backlash is becoming evident. Soon, no one will believe anything printed in the mainstream media unless they've already seen it or heard it themsleves from a more reliable source. In their hunger to get the scoop and further their agenda, they've become blinded by their own ambitions and bias.
No, that's a cultural myth: the job of the press is to sell either newspapers or advertising or both. To do that you have to appeal to the most readers and/or advertisers you possibly can.
Any reporting of the truth is rather coincidental: telling the truth does not pay people wages, and in fact may often lead to expensive legal proceedings or even a drop in sales and especially a drop in advertising (which is itself, lets face it, either seriously misleading or complete lies). The "truth" that can be reported is only really what the government, courts and the advertisers will allow, and what the editors think people will read - ie what is culturally held as being "true". And indeed arguably, the only reason the "truth" as such gets a look in at all is to avoid big court fines.
Generally speaking in this day and age any newspaper's "agenda" is set by its perception of what sells to big businesses (advertisers) or the masses (the readers). The whole liberal media allegation is a bit silly: essentially it's all about the sales figures - and what could be a more right wing agenda than that, eh? ;)
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Generally speaking in this day and age any newspaper's "agenda" is set by its perception of what sells to big businesses (advertisers) or the masses (the readers). The whole liberal media allegation is a bit silly: essentially it's all about the sales figures - and what could be a more right wing agenda than that, eh? ;)
that's easy, exposing and sounding off against the right wing agenda sells.
-
GWB & Co are diverting US from rest of the world and IMHO that's good :)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
that's easy, exposing and sounding off against the right wing agenda sells.
To who? Doesn't that imply that the majority of Americans who buy newspapers are left wing?
-
they have already found some of those released trying to kill us again
lock them up and throw away the key
we are safe until a bleeding heart, un/eu liberal friendly twit is elected into the big house. next homeland attack will be under that losers watch and it will make 911 seem like nothing
-
And in that case what are the right wing whining about? - the liberal bias clearly doesn't affect them, because they don't buy enough of the newspapers to affect the bias. ;)
-
I thought America and Britain invaded on the pretext of dissatisfaction with inspectors access; or lack of; to Iraqs diverse facilities.
Now the current admistration is denying access to inspectors.
There's a logic here somewhere?
And unilateraly declaring a whole new type of people's enemy:
"Unlawfull combatants"; "Western Crusaders".
Do both sides really share the same awfull speech writers?
-
I thought America and Britain invaded on the pretext of dissatisfaction with inspectors access; or lack of; to Iraq's diverse facilities.
Now the current admnistration is denying access to inspectors.
There's a logic here somewhere?
And unilateraly declaring a whole new type of people's enemy:
"Unlawfully combatants"; "Western Crusaders".
Do both sides really share the same awfully speech writers?
-
I thought America and Britain invaded on the pretext of dissatisfaction with inspectors access; or lack of; to Iraq's diverse facilities.
Now the current admnistration is denying access to inspectors.
There's a logic here somewhere?
And unilateraly declaring a whole new type of people's enemy:
"Unlawfull combatants"; "Western Crusaders".
Do both sides really share the same awfully speech writers?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
I thought America and Britain invaded on the pretext of dissatisfaction with inspectors access; or lack of; to Iraq's diverse facilities.
Now the current admnistration is denying access to inspectors.
There's a logic here somewhere?
And unilateraly declaring a whole new type of people's enemy:
"Unlawfull combatants"; "Western Crusaders".
Do both sides really share the same awfully speech writers?
The inspectors had ZERO access before America placed a large military force on the ground. The problem was that the UN was never going to be able to make Iraq do squat.
It was the US that forced inspectors back and tried to allow the UN to enforce it's resolutions. The UN failed, so we did the job of making Iraq compliant.
Now Iraq is in full compliance and there is no need for UN inspectors that I can see.
And were excatly did you hear that we have unilaterally declared a whole "new type" of people's enemy? What does that even mean?
An unlawful enemy combatant is someone who does not follow the rules of war set forth in the Geneva conventions. It's really pretty cut and dry and simple.
In war, there are lawful enemy combatans and unlawful enemy combatants. Either type, when captured in battle, can legally be held for the duration of the conflict. Nothing new or exciting about it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The inspectors had ZERO access before America placed a large military force on the ground. The problem was that the UN was never going to be able to make Iraq do squat.
It was the US that forced inspectors back and tried to allow the UN to enforce it's resolutions. The UN failed, so we did the job of making Iraq compliant.
Now Iraq is in full compliance and there is no need for UN inspectors that I can see.
And were excatly did you hear that we have unilaterally declared a whole "new type" of people's enemy? What does that even mean?
An unlawful enemy combatant is someone who does not follow the rules of war set forth in the Geneva conventions. It's really pretty cut and dry and simple.
In war, there are lawful enemy combatans and unlawful enemy combatants. Either type, when captured in battle, can legally be held for the duration of the conflict. Nothing new or exciting about it.
Inspectors got access and couldn't find WMDs and when you didn't believe their reports and deciced to use yours you attacked and found nothing.
Oh and if "Unlawful enemy combatant" is someone who doesn't follow GC then it's whole US armed forces including GWB & Co. who should be sitting in that concentration camp of yours.
I can understand what went wrong; already Hitler and Göebbels knew the might of well lubricated propaganda machine. It's just bit sad to see so many people falling into fabricated "truths"; aka lies.
-
Staga.. "that is NOT our Munkie."
-
Take it from a nam war vet - The press does NOT want the truth. The U.N. doesn't want the truth. The World as a whole doesn't want the truth. They want to feel good and have a scape goat for everything wrong and bad.
If we really want to torture them at GITMO, really serve them nothing but JELLO. It's made from pork.
When some one is killing you, either a regular soldier or not, you should take them out - PERIOD.
The good being done is over shadowed by nothing more than Bull!
-
so seeker... do you believe that there is a potential weapon or danger to the entire world at gitmo that needs to be inspected?
If we don't allow the inspectors the UN can allways write us a nasty letter or ten.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so seeker... do you believe that there is a potential weapon or danger to the entire world at gitmo that needs to be inspected?
If we don't allow the inspectors the UN can allways write us a nasty letter or ten.
lazs
I've no idea what's at Gitmo. I don't really believe that America is systamaticaly tortureing or abuseing people either; a few rotten apples don't spoil the whole barrel in my book.
However; how do you feel about your administration "dissapearing" people to such a place? How does the Patriot act make you feel?
I'm certainly uncomfortable with any administration, anywhere, withholding liberty with out charge for such a length of time. Ileagal combatants? Fine; so charge (and try!) them with that then; at least you'd be working in a recognisable format.
As it is; the image I'm getting from a state declaiming "freedom!" from the roof tops while supporting and defending institutions such as Gitmo is rather similar to the image of a mother proclaiming "chastity!" to her kids whilst having a torrid affair with a neighbour; in other words: moral bankruptcy.
You don't win insurgent wars with a big stick and a bad attitude. If you did; we'd still own all of Ireland; and not just be stuck with a little bit we can't get rid of.
I do believe there is a potential danger to the world at Gitmo which needs examination; and that's the danger of a central government doing stuff it knows is unacceptable and getting away with it. That's not a uniquely American problem by any means. But what is uniquely American is the effect such a process could have on the rest of the world if it's left unchecked or unexamined; especialy now your enforcement agencies have taken to kidnapping foreign nationals from foreign lands.
If Belgium tried that stuff America is more than big enough to stop it. But who's big enough to stop America?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
I'm certainly uncomfortable with any administration, anywhere, withholding liberty with out charge for such a length of time. Ileagal combatants? Fine; so charge (and try!) them with that then; at least you'd be working in a recognisable format.
Every country in every war has held prisoners and can legally do so. There are no trials, they are unlawful combatants who have been captured in battle. They can legally be held for the duration of the war.
The only difference between lawful and unlawful combatants is that lawful combatants can aslo be held without a trial for the duration of the conflict, but they have to be treated according to the Geneva conventions.
Nothing at all out of the ordinary is going on here. I don't understand what the big deal is about holding captured combatants.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Every country in every war has held prisoners and can legally do so. There are no trials, they are unlawful combatants who have been captured in battle. They can legally be held for the duration of the war.
The only difference between lawful and unlawful combatants is that lawful combatants can aslo be held without a trial for the duration of the conflict, but they have to be treated according to the Geneva conventions.
Nothing at all out of the ordinary is going on here. I don't understand what the big deal is about holding captured combatants.
I have to agree, 100%.
The problem is not everyone treats legal combatants by the rules set by the Geneva Convention.
Gitmo is not only holding combatants, but terroists, or those with ties to terrist organizations.
Why is there an up roar about this when thugs attack, hijack and behead civilians just trying to do a job? That is NOT the way to fight for freedom in any form of the word.
There are too many eyes on the wrong target! Gitmo is a holding pen for a lot of brutal individuals who want nothing more than to force the whole world back into the dark ages. You can cry for them if they get their way, only you will have to have approval first.
-
Originally posted by Gato
There are too many eyes on the wrong target! Gitmo is a holding pen for a lot of brutal individuals who want nothing more than to force the whole world back into the dark ages. You can cry for them if they get their way, only you will have to have approval first.
Thing is that as a free western country with at least some moral you should show you're civilized nation but sadly it looks like you've fallen in same level with those you're fighting against by killing woundeds and imprisoning enemies for years without giving them possibility to be heard in court and defend themself.
It's sad to see such behaviour from country who has been banging the "drum of freedom" for so long...
-
Originally posted by Staga
Thing is that as a free western country with at least some moral you should show you're civilized nation but sadly it looks like you've fallen in same level with those you're fighting against by killing woundeds and imprisoning enemies for years without giving them possibility to be heard in court and defend themself.
It's sad to see such behaviour from country who has been banging the "drum of freedom" for so long...
Fallen to the same level??? What a joke. We are not torturing people, cutting off their heads, or kidnapping and holding inocent people.
We are simply holding captured combatants and have every right to do so. There are no trials for captured combatants....they are simply help for the duration of the conflict just like any other nation does in any other war.
And the prisoners at Gitmo are gaining weight on their gourmet cooked meals as the gaurds eat MRE's.
-
staga... There is no danger to the world at gitmo except the terrorists themselves. What I am asking you is... What business is it of the UN?
The UN has far too much power in my opinion anyway. If the people of the US want to know about gitmo we will... I don't want to be told anything by the friggin UN. I never voted for any of em and they are not even US citizens.
I would rather shoot at a blue helmet than an iraqi.. the UN affects, or trys to affect, my life a lot more negatively than most muslims.
lazs
-
Nuke you are really funny guy; I bet your mom loves you :)
Lazs it would be a pleasure to see you and your guns standing between fighting groups trying to keep them from killing each other.
Your vision about UN is, if I may say, quite "limited" and thus I can't take you serious.
Sorry :)
-
my "vision of the UN" is that I never voted for any of em and I would be glad to stand between their blue helmets and my people if they came here. I might not really "stand" but I would help make their stay short and unpleasant.
I will vote for anything that lessens their power over me.
lazs
-
See Rule #5
-
Yeah staga.. the US never loses anyone in wars of freedom... the UN is doing it all..
If it is up to me I would move the UN building to some ice bear country and let you guys support it and try to get paid for all it's stuck up members parking tickets.
lazs
-
the double standard is par for the course as history has repeatedly shown.
-
Originally posted by Staga
See Rule #5
You might not like it but that's how it is.
-
I don't know what you said but you can count on my vote if they ever want to decide on moving the UN to ice bear country or not.
lazs
-
Oh my, the torture those poor soles are put through in Gitmo, Sandy! Just makes my heart bleed red, white and blue. :rofl :rofl
WASHINGTON — An accused enemy combatant held at Guantanamo Bay told a military hearing he was physically as well as mentally tortured there by having to read a newsletter full of 'crap,' being forced to use unscented deodorant and shampoo and having to play sports with a ball that would not bounce.
Majid Khan of Pakistan denied any connection to Al Qaeda and said he was tortured and his family hounded by U.S. authorities, according to a redacted transcript released Tuesday by the Pentagon.
Khan told an April 15 hearing called to determine whether he was rightly classified as an "enemy combatant" that he also had his baby pictures taken from him, that cleaners left marks on his cell walls and that detainees have no DVD players or other entertainment.
At one point, Kan said he wrote on his walls, "stop torturing me, I need my mails, newspaper and my lawyer."
Khan was captured in Pakistan in 2003. The military says he has provided support to Al Qaeda and has expressed a desire to assassinate Pakistan's President Pervez Musharaff. The April 15 hearing is the first step in possible war crimes charges against him.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/NEWS07/70515038/1001/NEWS
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272492,00.html
-
Playing with a ball that wont bounce can be very frustrating, it could elevate blood pressure and cause psychological problems.
shamus
-
Holy dead thread, Batman!!!
What's next, another refs beat the Seahawks whine?
-
IN.
-
IN