dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/thu/jun10w34.htm

refusing to give a reason as to why he wouldnt release memos on torture to congress..



here is an AWESOME video about a very very high level lawyer talking about geneva convention and its applications to our current conflicts..

i suggest everyone watch it.

http://video.lisarein.com/billmoyers...s-iraq-all.mov

Salty

iTrader: (14)

What happened in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was tastless and I know I speak on belhalf of the majority of service members when I say this. Pfc. England and others involved have already been dealt with and those within the chain of command have resigned awhile ago.

And I thought the funeral for Ronald Reagan is being overcovered in the media Yes, congress has a right to know but let's not forget the alcoholic, (D) Mass. Senator Kennedy is asking the questions during a an election time. Isn't Kerry from Mass too?

It was ground breaking news when it happened and those who were responsible were dealt with expeditiously. Now i've come to the understanding that we're beating a dead horse to make the Bush administration look worse that it already does. It's nothing but politics at this point and i could really care less.

On a side note, they've also been investigating CAG and other CT units in attempt to prove they've done drowning interrogation techniques to TERRORISTS. Why is this a shocker to anyone if it saves lives and our saftey? These guys are risking their lives in attempt to further ensure terrorists don't attack on our soils again. That said, here's a great quote from the article Dre posted above...

In the end I really don't understand how a bunch of stewartists could pull off such a thing.

Beat that dead horse Dre... BEAT IT DAMN YOU!

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

plan and simple, he couldnt give any reason not to give them the memos that are allready on the internet.

basicly he was holding out, if you read the memos it clearly is a justification to use torrture against people. It is if anything the corner stone of a policy that our goverment has been evidently using to get information..

Im not here to debate if it is moral or not, im just here to debate ashcrofts actions and put them in a bit of context.

Personally i think torture SHOULD NOT BE USED AT ALL, but i like to follow the golden rule of sorts.. do unto others as you would have done to you.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

oh and the whole pissing on the geneva conventions thing s compeltely assinine, and the "we are at war" is a complete joke, we are no more at war with terrorists as we allways have been. We are at war in afghanistan and iraq tho.

TERRORISTS HAVE ALLWAYS POSTED A THREAT AGAINST US AS A NATION AND AS A PEOPLE, THIS ISNT A NEW ****ING WAR, IT HAS BEEN WAGED SINCE THE DAWN OF ****ING TIME.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

The geneva conventions are extremely outdated and should have exceptions for interrogations of terrorists. They're terrorists afterall, NOT soldiers under a formal government. By the way, what would you personally know about them? Did you have to abide by strict ROE ever? Don't complain about ROE, CI and the conventions when you've never personally been affected by them.

Since when has terrorism "always posted a threat against us", Dre? If anything, terrorism by definition has only been a concern for the USA within the last 30 odd years.

Explain your idea of Terrorism please. Assasination attempts, The Revolution, Civil War and what not don't qualify. Please give me some terrorism examples with dates that are relavent.

I'm done with your threads

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
^ my definition

globably applied, im not jsut talking about religious backed middle eastern terrorists. I am talking about terrorism in its TRUE FORM, using terror to manipulate people and situations. That has been around since the dawn of time, ever since the first caveman found out that if he hit someone in the head with a rock he could take their food, and after that they would just give it to him for free.

As for assinations and the likes why dont they qualify? you can clearly see that they fit under the definition i posted.


one could argue that states in the old sense or erroding away from under neath us, with the EU and other such orgnizations sprouting up. Hell you could say al quedea is the first in a soon to be long line of groups of people who are not bound by state ties or other such non sensical issues. They are bound by a common vision or goal. They wont be the first such orgnization, nor will they be the last.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

The Andre Dictionary. ehhh?


There's a difference in assasinations, revolution and war when compared to terrorism or else it would say "see terrorism" for any of those other words in a REAL dictionary. There's a big difference between a bully at school stealing your lunch money, a caveman stealing your food and a terrorist cell that wants to kill ALL Americans by any means necessary. Changing the the way of life in the United States and striking fear into everyone has only been practiced in the last few decades.

psoper

Oh yeah? I didn't hear about this lawyer Gonzales, Rumsfeld or "W" resigning any time lately, seems to me they are at the top of the COC, until they resign I think you are wrong about that last bit.

Pfc England didn't make that stuff up, and AbuGraib isn't the only place that crap is happening.

And Ashcroft is an accesory for assisting with the cover-up.

not to mention what a total ******* he is.......

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Let's be rational here shall we? Does the chief of police resign when there's a crooked cop? I don't see how bush has anything to do with this situation. Maybe Rumsfeld on the other hand but not Bush. It's not like he micro manages everything. He's the President, not a damn grunt. In that case i should have been allowed to "resign" when i few of my men went AWOL. I didn't do my job correctly afterall. And if you want to get stupid you should resign the next time you screw up at your job.

Nevermind im tired of these **** threads

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

nope

www.m-w.com

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

dont puss out now damnit, your the only conservitive oice in baic.


anyways


you are right about him not being a grunt, but if this evidence as well as other evidence floats to the top like these memos have. That basicly "legitimize" the use of torture in prison camps you can sure as hell bet that the issue is a much higher level issue then a few "bad cops"...

that is what that memo is saying, it is basicly the DOJ giving it stamp of approval (and even spelling out justifications for the use of torture) to the white house. Then all we need is the memos from the white house to the pentagon saying its a ok to use torture... think of this as a smoking shell, we are still looking for the gun with the finger prints.

ldivinag

iTrader: (3)

if that's the case, then almost everyone in politics should be guilty.

they military was correct in punishing the head of military police - the general in charge of that prison. she was a national guard and was "thrown" into the situation to head up that prison.

before people start jumping to conclusion, get proof that rumsfield was in the loop.

fryrice

iTrader: (3)

Give it a rest man, get over it. It's not much of a big deal.........aleast the US didn't cut people head or any body part off. Would you prefer them cutting your ballz off than you posing nude???

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

the whole point of those photos and making the do the things they did was because those people would have rather have died a gruesome death then have those pictures taken.

Wow dont get around much do ya?