Amnesty International slams US

The hysteria created by this report from AI seems to have caused some stupid ideas by well known politico's. Seems just a little criticism of prisioner treatment at GITMO has knuckleheads like Sen Biden and now Jimmy Carter call for it's closing.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050608/D8AJE0H02.html

""The U.S. continues to suffer terrible embarrassment and a blow to our reputation ... because of reports concerning abuses of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo," Carter said after a two-day human rights conference at his Atlanta center."

IS this what the liberals really want?? Realease every prisioner since we "hurt their feelings"??

Even Biden stated most should not be released. THEN WHY CLOSE THE PLACE???

0 Replies

Well, charge them with crimes, then.

Holding people without charging them with crimes is a big part of people's objections to the whole thing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Attorney General is not "Bush's" lawyer.

You haven't stated what would have been done differently had the Justice Department concluded the Geneva Conventions did apply. Have you read about the deference given to the handling of the Koran at Gitmo, or are you just focusing on the 5 confirmed cases of mishandling 2-3 years ago, 3 of which were intentional?

0 Replies

Sigh

For every confirmed case, there are a dozen that happen and don't get reported.

For every confirmed case, there are a dozen that 'not enough evidence' exists one way or the other to decide.

You are smart enough to know this, Tico.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For every confirmed case, there are a dozen that 'not enough evidence' exists one way or the other to decide.

And let me see if I understand your thinking on this: If there's not enough evidence to decide one way or another, you are going to conclude there was Koran mishandling? But when it comes to the detention of the terrorist suspects, if there's not enough evidence to decide one way or another, you are going to conclude they are not terrorists.

That about sum it up?

<sigh>

0 Replies

No. I believe that in only some of the cases which don't have enough evidence to confirm or deny, that Koran abuse went on. This number is undoubtedly higher than three but I don't believe that every reported case is true. Just that realistically, some of the unconfirmable ones are true.

And there have undoubtedly been abuses that are unreported. Once again, you are smart enough to understand this fact.

I believe that some of the prisoners at Gitmo are innocent and some are guilty. It is difficult to know what the proportions are. Some have been released so it is obvious that not all of them are guilty; yet they are being held indefinately without charge. This is not good for our image or our nation as a whole.

I understand that this is a difficult problem to figure out but it is a crucial one, and I wish we would have some clarity in the situation soon.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, charge them with crimes, then.

Holding people without charging them with crimes is a big part of people's objections to the whole thing.

Cycloptichorn

They are being held as participants and you know that. You also know MOST would kill you in an instant once they are released. You also know that.

Yet all the Liberals care about is what AI thinks or France or the UN thinks.

Investigate any actual abuse, prosecute those guilty but do NOT close the prision.

0 Replies

So you're playing the odds. Some folks might refer to that as "gambling." Wink

Whether those that have been released are "guilty" or not is hard to say. The fact that they've been released does not constitute a finding that they are "not guilty," and it certainly doesn't mean they are "innocent."

On a related point, do you think OJ Simpson is "guilty"? Many people think he is, even though he was not convicted at trial.

But I'll admit to being m conflicted about the holding indefinitely without charging situation.

0 Replies

Quote:

You also know MOST would kill you in an instant once they are released. You also know that.

No, I don't know this. Unlike you, I don't paint every one of our enemies as a bloodthirsty savage.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The Attorney General is not "Bush's" lawyer.

You haven't stated what would have been done differently had the Justice Department concluded the Geneva Conventions did apply. Have you read about the deference given to the handling of the Koran at Gitmo, or are you just focusing on the 5 confirmed cases of mishandling 2-3 years ago, 3 of which were intentional?

The whole conversation that I am presently carrying on started CG saying that we should treat the Koran any way we want to since they treat the Bible the way they do.

I said that no we couldn't do that if we didn't dismiss the geneva convention.

If we had the intention of upholding the convention, why did we dismiss it?

I think the AG (excuse me) was just grabbing cover in case later on down the line we find out the interrogators were getting their instructions from farther up the chain. I seriously doubt we got rid of the Geneva Convention because we were worried that Arabs and Muslims were going to complain if they didn't get their daily exercise.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
You also know MOST would kill you in an instant once they are released. You also know that.

No, I don't know this. Unlike you, I don't paint every one of our enemies as a bloodthirsty savage.

Cycloptichorn

Really?? You do not know this???

Sen Biden knows this and even said it this morning on IMUS.

It's is attitudes like yours and Jimmy Carter that helped cause the WTC to be a big whole in the ground that it is today.

0 Replies

ConstitutionalGirl wrote:

revel wrote:
Cg, if bush didn't have his lawyers get around the Geneva Convention, then no we really couldn't do anything we wanted to the Koran no matter what is claimed to have been done to the Bible.

Usually in wars there are rules and limits in place which have to be abided by in prisons. In those rules and regulations there is something in there about respecting the enemy's religion and rules about the limits of torture.

But we have an arbitrary President who just says, "Poof be gone", and it is gone.

"We should treat them the same way, they treat us!"

In other words, tit for tat.

An eye for an eye until everyone is blind.

Do you realize that if a country positions itself for leadership as the US does then there shouldn't be any 'treating them the way they treat us.'

Besides, you righties like to quote Christ. So, what about turning the other cheek.

Your statement is childish.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
You also know MOST would kill you in an instant once they are released. You also know that.

It's is attitudes like yours and Jimmy Carter that helped cause the WTC to be a big whole in the ground that it is today.

Hmm. What if, in the future, it is demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the CIA, at the urging of the Bush administration, sponsored 9/11?

0 Replies

woiyo

Quote:

Really?? You do not know this???

Sen Biden knows this and even said it this morning on IMUS.

It's is attitudes like yours and Jimmy Carter that helped cause the WTC to be a big whole in the ground that it is today.

BULL SH*T.

It is agressive foreign policy attitudes by our leaders over the last 30 years that caused that to happen. It is mistakes in thinking there are no reprecussions that caused that to happen. My attitudes and Jimmy Carters' had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and I'm insulted that you would claim they did.

Please apologize, for you know what you have written is untrue. And we've been getting on so well lately...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
You also know MOST would kill you in an instant once they are released. You also know that.

It's is attitudes like yours and Jimmy Carter that helped cause the WTC to be a big whole in the ground that it is today.

Hmm. What if, in the future, it is demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the CIA, at the urging of the Bush administration, sponsored 9/11?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo

Quote:
Really?? You do not know this???

Sen Biden knows this and even said it this morning on IMUS.

It's is attitudes like yours and Jimmy Carter that helped cause the WTC to be a big whole in the ground that it is today.

BULL SH*T.

It is agressive foreign policy attitudes by our leaders over the last 30 years that caused that to happen. It is mistakes in thinking there are no reprecussions that caused that to happen. My attitudes and Jimmy Carters' had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and I'm insulted that you would claim they did.

Please apologize, for you know what you have written is untrue. And we've been getting on so well lately...

Cycloptichorn

Agressive policy attitudes??? BUNK!!!

Passive attitudes is more like it. The US let the "muslims" get away with destruction of US bases, kidnappings in Iran, genocide is Iraq, Afganistan. Over the past 30 years we were held hostage and probably assisted in many of these atrocities due our weakness which is OIL.

Reagan showed strength. Bush Jr. shows strength (and stubborness which is a fault). Carter, Clinton and to a degree Bush Sr. showed weakness.

If the 9-11 highjackers knew what was going to happen in Afganistan, I wonder if they would have still followed through.

0 Replies

Of course they would have!

You forget that the majority of the hijackers were from where? That's right, Saudi Arabia.

This war in the Middle East isn't strength, it is playing right into the hands of the antagonists, ie. the terrorists. You don't think they thought we would counter-attack? How stupid do you think they were?

The US is far more reviled in the middle east then it was before 9/11. Do you believe that this works against the intentions of OBL?

Our agressive policies of arming insurgents to fight the russians in Afghanistan, of supporting and giving chemical weapons to Iraq to fight Iran, of putting military bases on Saudi Arabian soil, our policy of keeping the populaces of the countries of the region poor by supporting dictatorial regimes; all of these have had effects. We are seeing these effects today.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"You don't think they thought we would counter-attack? How stupid do you think they were? "

VERY STUPID.That is why they folded up like the cheap cowards they are in Afganistan.

We did not need to arm the Afgan rebels against Russia. It back fired and indirectly (or directly) created Taliban. Russia would have had prolonged problems without our help. Reagan tried too hard there.

Everything else you describe is accurate and to me signs of WEAKNESS by US govt.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't think they thought we would counter-attack? How stupid do you think they were?

They had no reason to think the US would react the way it did. They viewed the US as cowards, and they had Clinton's legacy to base that on.

0 Replies

Well, then our agressive foreign policies are signs of weakness, then.

As for this

Quote:

VERY STUPID.That is why they folded up like the cheap cowards they are in Afganistan.

Who did?

The Taliban is alive and well in Afghanistan, in case you've forgotten.

Al Qaeda is alive and well all over the world, in case you've forgotten.

Osama Bin Laden is alive and still planning attacks against us, in case you've forgotten.

So who exactly lost here? We haven't accomplished the objective of breaking up AQ. We haven't caught OBL. We haven't even kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

You have to know that they aren't stupid, Woiyo. They just knew that they couldn't win against the might of the US armed forces. So they decided not to fight a stand-up fight. And guess what? Because of that, we haven't accomplished any of our goals.

How stupid are they again?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Amnesty International slams US

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know