THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

If they feel threatened, it's because their own leaders are biting off more than they can chew. Perhaps they should show a little appreciation for our benevolence and relatively few excesses when you consider what many of them would do with such power. Look how Chirac thinks he's the leader of the free world, when in reality he's just a blowhard who's true power measures only slightly higher than total irrelevance. Imagine how drunk with power that fool would be if his position afforded him the power of the U.S. Presidency. And Germany is going to play arbiter of the human rights to the world? Really? Had Germany been blessed with the resources of the United States, would the world be better or worse? Perhaps in an ideal world, the U.S. is a merciless brute… but in the real world, they are probably the kindest, fairest Alpha we could reasonably hope for.

interesting take Fox, Rumsfeld says they are not pow's and you say they are not ordinary prisoners. btw, just what is your "fine distinction"?

I believe they are being classified as illegal combatants under the Geneva convention which would ignore being classified as criminals OR POW's.

I like this argument! Let's sum up...

"Whatever the US might do in the world is always excuseable because I/we predict that any other nation in a similar position of power would be guilty of the same crimes the US is guilty of although it isn't obviously, but moreso. For example, goodness knows just how many testicles would be wired to Toyota batteries if the evil-hearted Swiss were running Abu Ghraib? But we know beyond any doubt that there would be WAY more nut-frying because...the Swiss aren't Americans.

This advantage in true gooditude which accrues to those people who were born in the US (or, temporarily, to those foreigners who get envelopes squishy with US dollars from people who were born in the US but who cannot themselves be seen out in the open with that subcontractor or that envelope or that receipe for mustard gas or that beatentoshit arab body) is what separates America and Americans from all others. Americans are born with that true gooditude, and then they get more at school and from TV and video games and Jerry Falwell until there is so much pure true gooditude in them that it must pour out like rich cream over America's lucky lucky neighbors in the world."

I like this argument.

Gelisgesti wrote:

Let's see, who's next up the ladder? Hmmmmm

Quote:

Pentagon Threatens[/color] Germany over Rumsfeld Suit

The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Berlin's Republican Lawyers' Association has filed suit in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of 4 Iraqis who allege they were mistreated by American troops. A number of other high-ranking US officials are also named. AFP writes:

' The groups that filed the complaint said they had chosen Germany because of its Code of Crimes Against International Law, introduced in 2002, which grants German courts universal jurisdiction in cases involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. It also makes military or civilian commanders who fail to prevent their subordinates from committing such acts liable. '



What is interesting about the Pentagon reaction to this suit is how frantic the Department of Defense seems. Although spokesman Larry DiRita dismissed it as "frivolous," he threatened Germany with dire consequences if the suit goes forward.
DiRita said,

'"Generally speaking, as is true anywhere, if these kinds of lawsuits take place with American servicemen in the cross-hairs, you bet it's something we take seriously . . . I think every government in the world, particularly a NATO ally, understands the potential effect on relations with the United States if these kinds of frivolous lawsuits were ever to see the light of day." '



These remarks raise several questions. Why is DiRita hiding behind the fact that American servicemen are "in the cross-hairs? What have Rumsfeld's policies or legal problems got to do with grunts on the front line? You think they like Rumsfeld? Look what happened when he let them ask him questions.

Then, if the lawsuit is frivolous, why should it produce grave consequences for Germany? It should produce frivolity and hilarity if it is frivolous. It seems actually to be taken very seriously.

Is the real threat the damage to Rumsfeld's public image, or the danger that the lawsuit may prompt a discovery process?

Finally, surely DiRita is not suggesting that the Federal government actively interfere with a legal process? Wouldn't that be the Executive squelching the Judiciary? Isn't that contrary to the separation of Powers? Or is the new monarchism to be imposed on Germany as well, now that it is the model in Washington?

Wed, Dec 15, 2004 0:36

What good does filing lawsuits against the military in other countries do? We don't put in ourselves in the position of being judged by any international court. It is not as though they can force us into anything is it?

Then we wonder why so many people feel so threatened[/color] by the US.

Jesse Jackson is only George Bush's prophet.

I guess she, O'Bill, Tico, McG and the others watch a lot of Audie Murphy and John Wayne films, and from that they are unshakeably convinced of the innate goodness and humanity of the military.

Of the countries who've made a push to become the Alpha in recent history, which one do you realistically think would be more benevolent? (The Swiss have made no such push)(Don't forget the word realistically either. Idealistically, I would agree we could do so much better. )

In other words, the United States is in competition with your ideal, not reality, and therefore, you should probably avoid terms like "rose tinted glasses", realistic, naïve, etc as they only serve to further exemplify your own delusions. Idealism isn't a dirty word… but if that's where you're defending your positions from it's preposterous to attack positions that reflect the reality of the world with accusations of naivety. There has always, and will always be an alpha. Recognizing this is part of reality. Thank you for helping me illustrate the simple, commendable, but ultimately unrealistic truth of the liberal bias here.

There is a fine distinction between ordinary prisoners who are subject to all the protections and rights of civil law and prisoners of war who are subject only to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. The latter dictates reasonable conduct of interrogation and humane treatment of those imprisoned, but makes no requirement about any hearing, trial, or length of imprisonment.

So the question is: We are in a war against terror. Are terrorists ordinary prisoners? Or are they prisoners of war?

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger