DubyaFollow

You mean like the way Bill Clinton was treated in office.

You are so FOS.

Gbaji, you deserve yourself.

Eb

Um... Why am I "FOS"?

Look. If you're going to make personal attacks, at least be accurate. I argued vehemently that Clinton should not have been treated the way he was during the Lewinski thing. I disagreed with it from day one. I still disagree with it today.


That's the difference between me and you. You pick a side and from that day forward, that side is always right. You defend "your side", and attack the other. I look at each issue and make an assessment of it. My "side" is irrelevant.

What's FOS is someone like you, who applies different rules based on which "side" is doing what. When it's Clinton getting slamed, it's totally wrong and unfair. But when it's Bush getting slamed, suddenly you are all over that bandwagon...

What's amazingly sad is that people like you don't even see the absolute ridiculousness of your arguments. You have zero consistency at all. You have no moral or ethical standpoint you hold on to. You just keep supporing your side no matter what they do. That's scary really...

WTF kind of neo-jingoism are you trying to surround yourself with? You're like those guys who say if you don't support Bush, you're a terrorist and want all out troops to die.

Sorry, but having a public opinion about something derived from the available evidence and remarks of those who've seen it is not unpatriotic. Having an opinion does not ruin due process any more than the public opinion swayed the OJ Simpson case or, perhaps more appropriately, the Rodney King trial. In both cases, "public opinion" was massively slanted towards thier guilt and in both cases they walked (later appeals/civil cases not withstanding). I suppose it's patriotic though to babble on about "OMG you commented on the Iraqi prison without seeing all the photos all linked to their source and a cross-referencing PsyOps manual so you want the American legal system dissolved and people asking you if everyone is guilty or not! You unamerican *******!"

All of which is beyond the point anyway. The point was that you were originally implying that we had no proof anything beyond embarassment was going on because you've only seen pictures of such. I was pointing out Congressmen who have seen photos of worse things than embarassment. If Rumsfeld wants us all to know the exact ratio of "Embarassment" (as if that's okay, after all.. being chained to a wall and threatened with dogs never hurt anyone) to "bona fide" torture, the means is at his fingers, 24/7 whenever he wants. Until then, I'm going with what's available which is the words of the elected officals who've seen them and those government sources who'll comment on them. What I'm not going to do is shut up and sit in the corner just because Rumsfeld wants to cover his own ***.

I like the man. Some people are mad at him for defying the UN but then again, in light of the Oil for Food program I do believe he made the right decision in leaving them out of the process. It is painfully obvious that many members of the UN had an interest in Saddam's continued dictatorship. Which leads me to another reason I like tha Dubster.. It was perfectly fine for Clinton to go into Serbia with military force because white Europeans were dying. Let him try to stop the smae behavior in the Middle East though? Yeah it's all about oil right? Because white Europeans are the only ones gauranteed civil rights and freedom in the world? As if going to Iraq truly had nothing to do with the War on Terror. The terrorists would rather bring the war to the streets of America and they are damn close to success until we cut the BS and started caring about our borders. So, we're fighting our War on Terror in Iraq not here. It was brilliant, we killed two birds with one stone.
As far as domestic policy is concerned I completely disagree with his stance on reproductive rights. One of the things that makes us so much greater than developing countries is the fact that college age and high school age youth have access to birth control. It's better for our economy and it's good for our communities. We've been overrun with foreigners who have less maturity when it comes to reproduction anyways. On this issue I vehemently disagree with the man but next subject... His economic policies have worked. We can't do anything about oil prices when it boils down to it. Instability in Venezuela and the Middle East have the US economy by the balls. In the light of these problems the markets and economy have shown amazing resiliency especially after September 11th.
Speaking of domestic policy, let's talk about gay marriage. What a load of horse crap that is. I mean, I can't point to any culture in history that allowed same sex marriages. Why do we have to start? To a degree the religious zealots we're fighting in our War on Terrorism have a point. We try so hard to have a shred of decency in the face of a foe who is taking a moral highground and then a small group of judges do something ludicrous like this. I'm not talking the god issue here either. It's just that to say that someone in washington can dictate who you marry as if to point the finger at Dubster is completely ridiculous. If I started calling computer monitors the Easter Bunny, got enough money and political backing behind me, it still wouldnt make computer monitors the frikken Ester Bunny. Homosexual "marriages" are not marriage at all. It has no legitamicy or historic backing whatsoever. Purely a political issue engineered to derail anyone opposed to it. It's horse crap and even the people behind it know it is.
Last but not least let's look at some facts about current US media realitys. The Abu Ghraib scandal stood on the front pages of national publications and headlined TV news stories for months and months. When the White House releases real pictures of wanted terroist suspects it lands on page 6 though. When the news media whose job it is to state facts and reality to its customers slants itself it only elads to indoctrination. Sure it might be hip and cool to dislike Bush right now. That's nothing mroe than a product of social engineering however. The fact of the matter is Bush has beena fine President in the face of so much turmoil. Also I can;t remember in our history where a wartime President has been elected out of office except in cases of wrongdoing. We are in the middle of a war despite whatever mechanations of our liberal media are. He has done well as leader and should be re elected. These are just my opinions. Feel free to feel however you want though.

Ok. How exactly am I being hypocritical? It's one thing to accuse someone of something. It's another thing entirely to be able to support your accusation.

When Clinton was being raked over the coals for getting a BJ, I argued that people should hold off judgement and hold of on the rhetoric and innuendo.

Now that Bush is bing raked over the coals for "allowing" the abuses in that prison to occur, I'm simply arguing the exact same point. Let's not jump to conclusions. Let's not grab onto every tidbit of information, no matter how vague and make accusations based on them.


Hypocritical is doing one thing when it is to your advantage and doing the *exact opposite* when it's not.

So if you thought it was "unfair" when Clinton was being mauled in the press for Lewinski, if you think it's anything other then "unfair" for Bush to be mauled in the press for this, then you are being a hypocrit.

Worse, if you are one of those people howling for judgement and revenge before any facts are known, and before a full investigation has taken place, then you are doubly hypocritical. You aren't just accepting what you didn't like when it was Clinton in the crosshairs, you are the one doing it.


Why am I suddenly a neo-**** because I simply ask that people not rush to judgement? I find that amazingly funny.


I also am bothered by the amazing polarization that politics has undergone. I'm a moderate. I always have been. However, I'm labeled as an ultra conservative simply because I don't jump on the "slam bush" bandwagon. Um... When did that happen? When did *not* being ultra liberal mean one must be ultra conservative? I hate to burst people's bubbles, but there's a whole range of political belief between the two states.


Even more annoying is when I list my "moderate" beliefs, and some folks (Smash has argued this on at least 3 separate occasions) argue that since I don't profess to ultra-liberal causes, I shouldn't support the current administration. How on earth can I be a Republican when I don't follow a hardline conservative structure?


Here's the quick answer folks. A party is made up of people. Those people ultimately determine what the parties objectives are. If you are wondering about how so many people who profess to not wanting prayer in school, or a revocation of Roe v Wade can possibly call themselves Republicans, the most likely explantion is that your idea of what that party is about is wrong.


Sheesh. When did being the voice of reason suddenly become vilified? Some of you people are ridiculous...

See what I mean? Because I'm not screaming for Bush's head on a platter, I'm a hard core right winger in your view.

Since when did simply suggesting that we allow due process to take it's course instead of yelling and screaming and protesting everything become anything other then "moderate"?

I am a moderate Republican. I don't just claim those beliefs. I have them. Just becuase you assume that everyone who's not "with you", is 180 degrees opposed to your beliefs doesn't make it true. What it does do is reduce the number of people who will agree with you on anything though...

Really? So all the 30 paragraph posts I'm made on topics about legalizing drugs, prayer in school, creationism vs evolution, and pro-live/pro-choice are all cancelled out the instant I say something horribly right-winged like: "Gee guys. Let's at least wait and see how the legal system deals with something before we pull out the torches and pitchforks...".

Got it.

Sigh. Selective memory I guess. I'm pretty hard core about those issues. I've argued strongly in favor of drug legalization, pro-choice, and against teaching creationism in schools (and school prayer for that matter) for years on this board. That's hardly "lip service".

Get your facts straight. I'll say it again. Why is it that just because I'm *not* jumping up and down on the "bash bush" bandwagon am I labeled a hard core right-winger? I simply don't believe that the people should rush to judgement. There's a reason we have laws, and it's to prevent folks from running amuck. While I'm as suspicious of "the man" as the next guy, I at least give the legal system the opportunity to fail before I start painting up protest signs...

No, they're all cancled out when you vote for people who believe the opposite.

They're cancled out because you support a party that supports nothing you believe.

They're cancled out because when what you claim to belive in doesn't jibe with who you vote for, nothing you post can be taken seriously.

That and you lie constantly, of course, let's not forget that one.

Amen to that!!! Leftys crack me up!!

I still do not see anything to validate what was done to the prisoners, no matter what their status was.

Amazing how you managed to miss the first paragraph of that article. Actually. I have to admit to some fault since I specifically mentioned spys and sabateurs, when that's not the entire set the article is talking about.

I'll bold that first bit for you so you can see where I'm coming from.




Let me explain what this means (again).

The first paragraph basically says that if a detainee is considered to be a risk to the security of the occupying force (typically a "citizen" who does not identify himself as a combatant, but carries out attacks on the occupying force), then that person losses his protection under the convention to the extent that is required to ensure the security of the occupying force.

While this certainly does not excuse rape, abuse, molestation, and many other acts, it certainly *does* include psychological torture (even real torture is not prohibited if the person being tortured has information about further attacks and that's determined to be the only way to extract that information), humuliation, and implication and/or threat of violence. If a member of a resistance cell is caught after/during an act of violence against the occupying force, most of the protections of this convention no longer apply. The assumption is that he knows the names and whereabouts of the other members of his group, and that those other members will plan and execute more attacks if they are not found. Therefore getting that information out of him is allowed, more or less by whatever means are needed.



The second paragraph is a further *additional* level of restriction. If one is a spy or sabateur, they can also be held without any communication with the outside world. That's in addition to any other loss of protected status they may have fallen into. The reasoning for that is because the mere knowledge that someone in that line of work has been caught can be damaging to the security of the occupying force.


The third paragraph is talking about two things. First, that regardless of what he's done, he can't be convicted of a crime without a trial including due process (doesn't say here how speedy that trial has to be though, or that he must be charged). Also, as soon as the conditions that made him a threat to the security of the occupying force are changed (typically as soon as he spills his information, or his information is no longer important), that prisoner must be reinstated as a protected person.


Additionally, the last paragraph specifies that they be treated "humanely" regardless of which condition applies to them. That's the crux of this whole issue really. What that means is very hard to determine. However, historically "standard" torture techniques like sleep deprivation, humiliation, and implied violence has been allowed (and used pretty regularly during the cold war).

And that's where my whole point comes in. We do not know the extent of the "abuses" going on in this prison. We do not know which were done by order, and which were done by individuals acting on their own. So far, all the pictures that have been released show images that fall very squarely into the kind of techniques that are allowed under the 4th convention for unlawful combatants. Stringing the guy up to a box is perfectly legal. Turning the juice on is generally considered crossing the line (but in more of a "can't you come up with a better way to get information" way). Making prisoners stand in various poses while naked is also "legal". Heck. The fact that the photos we've seen have the prisoners with their heads covered shows that there was some level of attention paid to what is and is not legal under this convention. One of the standards that nations have evolved for "humane" psychological torture is that of using photos like that to convince others that they will be tortured if they don't talk. However, showing the face of someone in the photo has become a violation since that humuliation and embarrasment from the photo would extend beyond the "torture" itself. Someone was following the letter of the law when they took those photos...

On the other hand, rape and sodomy are not allowed, since they would not fall under anyones definition of humane treatment. But we don't know how many of the photos that have been uncovered contain such images. We don't know if they were taken by the same group or as part of the same operation. One easy test (if we're ever allowed to see those pictures) would be to see if those images (which are definately illegal) contain detainees with their faces revealed. Since the photos we've seen, and which the soldiers involved have all said they were under orders to take, all have the prisoners heads covered, that would seem to be a pattern they were following. If there's another set where the prisoner's heads are not covered, that would be a strong indication that they were not taken by the same group, and presumably had no official sanction. Those photos would be illegal, and those who took them presumably should be punished as harshly as possible.

So a detainee is protected from torture by the convention. If by not torturing him to get the information he has jeapordises the security of the occupying force, then that's a protecton that he can lose at the discretion of said occupying force.

That's what the article is saying Smash. I know in your liberal "everything must be good and fair in the world" naivete, you'd like to think that the Geneva Conventions don't allow for such thing. But the fact is that it does.

Those are the same conditions underwhich both we and the Soviet Union detained spies and "illegal operatives" for decades during the cold war. They were certainly subjected to long periods of confinement with no due process, and were certainly subjected to torture and questioning that would be illegal under the standard application of the Geneva Convention.


Look. You are just plain wrong. I agree with you that it's not something we should be engaging in, but by strict defition of the 4th Convention, the activities we've seen in the photos that have been released so far are *not* illegal if the persons in those photos were classified as unlawful combatants. That may burst your bubble, but it's true.