What has been accomplished in 4 years?

[militarymuscle69]

I thought our intelligence groups were second to none...

They can't get us BETTER intel than what a scared shitless person will give us, considering they will say ANYTHING to spare themselves?

I don't buy it.

Your are probably right...we just enjoy "torturing" people, there is nothing that has ever come out of it. Actually don't tell but I heard they send the pics to Bush and he jacks off on them in the oval office....

[tu_holmes]

Your are probably right...we just enjoy "torturing" people, there is nothing that has ever come out of it. Actually don't tell but I heard they send the pics to Bush and he jacks off on them in the oval office....

That's probably true.

[24KT]

Your are probably right...we just enjoy "torturing" people, there is nothing that has ever come out of it. Actually don't tell but I heard they send the pics to Bush and he jacks off on them in the oval office....

For the first time, ...I'm actually beginning to sense a ring of truth about your posts.

I wonder if he left a stain on the Presidential carpet... maybe we could have it DNA tested?   

[The Enigma]

I don't know man, I just don't see it as that bad. I fully expect worse if I ever get caught. Not that it means much but these detainees aren't POWs so they don't fall under Geneva convention rules...

Why is it that they are detainee's......and you or I would be considered POW's if captured and held against our will?

Just wondering............... ......

[Dos Equis]

Why is it that they are detainee's......and you or I would be considered POW's if captured and held against our will?

Just wondering............... ......

Because a POW has a specific definition under the Geneva Convention and terrorists don't fall within that definition. 

[tu_holmes]

Because a POW has a specific definition under the Geneva Convention and terrorists don't fall within that definition. 

You know how I feel about this one... it's just nitpicking.

It's not about the Geneva convention, it's about how you as a human being treat another.

I don't need the Geneva convention to convince me that torture is wrong... I know it either way.

[Dos Equis]

You know how I feel about this one... it's just nitpicking.

It's not about the Geneva convention, it's about how you as a human being treat another.

I don't need the Geneva convention to convince me that torture is wrong... I know it either way.

Tu he was asking about classifying a person as a "detainee" vs. "POW."  I don't think that distinction has anything to do with torture.  I see it as not providing all of the rights afforded to POWs.   

[tu_holmes]

Tu he was asking about classifying a person as a "detainee" vs. "POW."  I don't think that distinction has anything to do with torture.  I see it as not providing all of the rights afforded to POWs.   

I just think that as a country whose entire existance is defined by peoples rights... We are doing ourselves a great disservice by ignoring theirs simply because they do not fall under some guidelines set by the geneva convention.

[Dos Equis]

I just think that as a country whose entire existance is defined by peoples rights... We are doing ourselves a great disservice by ignoring theirs simply because they do not fall under some guidelines set by the geneva convention.

I understand where you're coming from.  The problem I have is giving any concessions to terrorists.  They are barely human IMO.  Animals (many of them).  I don't think we should treat them like animals (e.g., give them their basic due process), but I have zero sympathy for anyone who murders innocent men, women, and children. 

[tu_holmes]

I understand where you're coming from.  The problem I have is giving any concessions to terrorists.  They are barely human IMO.  Animals (many of them).  I don't think we should treat them like animals (e.g., give them their basic due process), but I have zero sympathy for anyone who murders innocent men, women, and children. 

I too can see your point, but I guess I just don't like to start down a slippery slope.

Today, terrorists... (Don't forget Jose Padilla)

Tomorrow... every person who falls under some guideline... Once you start down the dark path, it will be almost impossible to find the light again.

[Dos Equis]

I too can see your point, but I guess I just don't like to start down a slippery slope.

Today, terrorists... (Don't forget Jose Padilla)

Tomorrow... every person who falls under some guideline... Once you start down the dark path, it will be almost impossible to find the light again.

Legit concern.  I don't support holding anyone indefinitely without charges. 

I have read up on Padilla.  He is a convict and, if nothing else, an idiot for hanging around with Al Qaeda.  He is also going to trial for, among other things, conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim. 

[tu_holmes]

Legit concern.  I don't support holding anyone indefinitely without charges. 

I have read up on Padilla.  He is a convict and, if nothing else, an idiot for hanging around with Al Qaeda.  He is also going to trial for, among other things, conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim. 

True, he is going to trial, but when... The only person I've seen have to deal with all of this kind of stuff and not go to trial in that amount of time is R-Kelly (How does he do it?)

I just think this guy is an American citizen and as such, should be treated like any one of us... like I said... when does it end.

We've started down a bad road... If we don't turn off now, we will never find a way out.

[Dos Equis]

True, he is going to trial, but when... The only person I've seen have to deal with all of this kind of stuff and not go to trial in that amount of time is R-Kelly (How does he do it?)

I just think this guy is an American citizen and as such, should be treated like any one of us... like I said... when does it end.

We've started down a bad road... If we don't turn off now, we will never find a way out.

R. Kelly.  The same one who videotaped himself having sex with a minor?  Speaking of idiots . . . .

Re Padilla:  "The trial is scheduled to begin April 16."  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/padi-m02.shtml

His insanity defense didn't fly. 

[tu_holmes]

R. Kelly.  The same one who videotaped himself having sex with a minor?  Speaking of idiots . . . .

Re Padilla:  "The trial is scheduled to begin April 16."  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/padi-m02.shtml

His insanity defense didn't fly. 

Yeah, that R. Kelly... why hasn't he gone to trial yet? I just don't get that one.

I'll be interested in seeing how this trial turns out... It's certainly taken long enough to get one started.

I never would have thought the insanity defense could amount to much so I'm not shocked.

[Dos Equis]

Yeah, that R. Kelly... why hasn't he gone to trial yet? I just don't get that one.

I'll be interested in seeing how this trial turns out... It's certainly taken long enough to get one started.

I never would have thought the insanity defense could amount to much so I'm not shocked.

I haven't followed R. Kelly's case. 

I'll be following Padilla's trial.  They better get a conviction . . . or bring their checkbook IMO.  I don't know why they held him for so long without charges, and maybe there is a "national security" reason, but I don't like it. 

[240 is Back]

I don't know why they held him for so long without charges, and maybe there is a "national security" reason, but I don't like it. 

I'm with you there.  Very hard to see what great time-sensitive intel he'd have of value, some 60+ months later.

[tu_holmes]

I haven't followed R. Kelly's case. 

I'll be following Padilla's trial.  They better get a conviction . . . or bring their checkbook IMO.  I don't know why they held him for so long without charges, and maybe there is a "national security" reason, but I don't like it. 

I agree... no conviction will mean huge payday for someone named Padilla.

I don't like it either... There's just something wrong about doing that to anyone, and since it happens to be a US citizen, it's even more disgusting.

[militarymuscle69]

Why is it that they are detainee's......and you or I would be considered POW's if captured and held against our will?

Just wondering............... ......

That isn't true though, everyone forgets that during the war in bosnia, when those slodiers crashed their Hummer, they weren't considered POWs and the Clinton administration was begging to get their classification changed to POW. It never happened and they were released before it really mattered. The capturing country is the one that designates a prisoners status. I know I asked this yesterday, there never was a declaration of war in Iraq correct? If so, the POW classification is irrelevant.

[240 is Back]

there never was a declaration of war in Iraq correct? If so, the POW classification is irrelevant.

Correct. 

Iraq = Authorized use of force.

Which is mindboggling.  We'll be there 5+ years.  And while "War in Iraq" was common vernacular, our kids will see it like we saw vietnam, a "conflict".

WIKI:
Authorized use of force is relatively common among democratic societies. The United States, for instance, has been directly involved in military activities in every decade of the latter half of the twentieth century yet has not declared war formally since World War II. For instance, in the case of the Vietnam war and the Iraq war, Congress authorized the use of force rather than putting forth a declaration of war. As noted above, there is a dispute over the constitutionality of this legislative procedure.

[tu_holmes]

That isn't true though, everyone forgets that during the war in bosnia, when those slodiers crashed their Hummer, they weren't considered POWs and the Clinton administration was begging to get their classification changed to POW. It never happened and they were released before it really mattered. The capturing country is the one that designates a prisoners status. I know I asked this yesterday, there never was a declaration of war in Iraq correct? If so, the POW classification is irrelevant.

Again, I don't understand how the classification matters...

It's not about the classification, it's not about the Geneva convention, it's about how we as a country who promote human rights and freedom, yet have no issue removing those freedoms and rights when it serves our purpose.

[militarymuscle69]

Again, I don't understand how the classification matters...

It's not about the classification, it's not about the Geneva convention, it's about how we as a country who promote human rights and freedom, yet have no issue removing those freedoms and rights when it serves our purpose.

I know Tu, but the world goes by the geneva convention....even in that, there are things that can be done to an Airman, that can't be done to an NCO and even more that can't be done to an Officer. If you don't want "freedoms and rights removed" we should open the doors to all the nations prisons today and let everyone walk out free?

[tu_holmes]

I know Tu, but the world goes by the geneva convention....even in that, there are things that can be done to an Airman, that can't be done to an NCO and even more that can't be done to an Officer. If you don't want "freedoms and rights removed" we should open the doors to all the nations prisons today and let everyone walk out free?

Look everyone, a spin statement!

Don't be silly mm, Of course not... However, when I say that "freedoms and rights shouldn't be removed" I mean without what we would consider due process... If a person is found guilty of a crime of course we should be allowed to imprison them for society's sake, but the people (detainees) have not been found guilty of a crime how have they?

They also are the closest thing we have to a POW... you can spin it however you want, but if we are fighting a "War on Terror" as the President says, then these guys are POWs... that's pretty cut and dried to me.

[militarymuscle69]

Look everyone, a spin statement!

Don't be silly mm, Of course not... However, when I say that "freedoms and rights shouldn't be removed" I mean without what we would consider due process... If a person is found guilty of a crime of course we should be allowed to imprison them for society's sake, but the people (detainees) have not been found guilty of a crime how have they?

They also are the closest thing we have to a POW... you can spin it however you want, but if we are fighting a "War on Terror" as the President says, then these guys are POWs... that's pretty cut and dried to me.

well you don't understand POW classifications, but oh well. The trials are getting underway so we will see what happens.

[tu_holmes]

well you don't understand POW classifications, but oh well. The trials are getting underway so we will see what happens.

I understand the classifications very well thank you, BUT we have modified our entire military idea to focus on a war on terror... we have modified the idea of war... We have progressed... Our military has progressed... Our classifications should progress too.

It seems that progress is only applicable when it suits your needs MM69.

Remember... "WAR" on Terror... I didn't come up with that title.

[militarymuscle69]

I understand the classifications very well thank you, BUT we have modified our entire military idea to focus on a war on terror... we have modified the idea of war... We have progressed... Our military has progressed... Our classifications should progress too.

It seems that progress is only applicable when it suits your needs MM69.

Remember... "WAR" on Terror... I didn't come up with that title.

You understand them very well? Maybe you would like ot tell the class some things that an NCO can be made to do as a POW that an officer can't...or maybe explain the different levels of punishment that can be administered by rank?

They aren't POWs dude, just like in Bosnia. How many people have we "tortured" anyway