Time to put up or shut up; Upd: Coverup Continues

... prosecuted....

Living in a democracy, the people as the sovereign has the right and the duty of oversight in the process of the prosecution of these atrocities. How do you, as a citizen of a democracy, make sure that these things are prosecuted and not covered up?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Lash wrote:
OE--

I am against child porn no matter who, why, how or when.

If you support it, there is no need to respond to me.

Well, Lash, if you are against child porn, don't you want to secure that none is produced in the first place, and in case this has already happened, that those responsible be prosecuted???

I would totally agree with you if you would just argue that you wouldn't want to see it published and instead want to see it handed over in order to see these crimes prosecuted.

Instead your argument seems to go along the lines of "Everybody responsible has already been put to trial". Well, I'll believe that if you can show me the cases and the verdicts. That is, the rape, torture and murder cases.

If you can't, wouldn't that let you appear in the light of protecting rapists and murderers, Lash?

Do you really believe that the US military isn't going to punish those responsible for violating rules? The military is very good at sending those who have committed crimes to jail.

I feel better about the military judicial system then I do about the civilian judicial system.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

... prosecuted....

Living in a democracy, the people as the sovereign has the right and the duty of oversight in the process of the prosecution of these atrocities. How do you, as a citizen of a democracy, make sure that these things are prosecuted and not covered up?

I vote for people who hate child pornography.
If you LOL--Good grief--are arguing that we need to allow the free flowing dissemination of kiddie porn in order to have ammo and addys to prosecute it, try to sell that **** somewhere else.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Do you really believe that the US military isn't going to punish those responsible for violating rules? The military is very good at sending those who have committed crimes to jail.

I feel better about the military judicial system then I do about the civilian judicial system.

Yes, I really believe that the US military isn't going to punish those responsible for violating rules. And I have not seen how the military is good at sending people to jail.

Let's talk about Bagram, were two innocent civilians were tortured and murdered. Which punishment would you demand for somebody who would commit such a crime in civilian, non-military American life? What would be the punishment in your state?

How were those responsible for the Bagram atrocities punished? What was the verdict, Baldimo?

I know you believe in and trust the Army, but you know as well as anybody else that there is no oversight, by design.

Military commissions are executive bodies, not independent or impartial courts. There is no right of appeal against their decisions to any court. And, frankly: I don't see the right the military should have to put these people to trial.
Does the company you're working with have a say in your trial when you have murdered somebody? No. Why should the military have a say in these matters?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I vote for people who hate child pornography.

You vote for people who employ people who produce child pornography.

0 Replies

Really.

1) Who do I vote for?

2) What are the names of child pornographers? Why haven't you turned them in?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Do you really believe that the US military isn't going to punish those responsible for violating rules? The military is very good at sending those who have committed crimes to jail.

I feel better about the military judicial system then I do about the civilian judicial system.

Yes, I really believe that the US military isn't going to punish those responsible for violating rules. And I have not seen how the military is good at sending people to jail.

Let's talk about Bagram, were two innocent civilians were tortured and murdered. Which punishment would you demand for somebody who would commit such a crime in civilian, non-military American life? What would be the punishment in your state?

How were those responsible for the Bagram atrocities punished? What was the verdict, Baldimo?

I know you believe in and trust the Army, but you know as well as anybody else that there is no oversight, by design.

Military commissions are executive bodies, not independent or impartial courts. There is no right of appeal against their decisions to any court. And, frankly: I don't see the right the military should have to put these people to trial.
Does the company you're working with have a say in your trial when you have murdered somebody? No. Why should the military have a say in these matters?

The military has the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is a very solid and highly effective form of justice. There is indeed a form of appeal in the UCMJ as well as lawyers judges. The only difference between civilian and military is the # of people it takes to find you guilty and the standard of evidence is a little bit looser.

I don't understand why some of you feel a military court if fine for those people in Gitmo but it wouldn't be fine for those in the military? Why the double standard?

0 Replies

hehehehehe....

Glad you reacted, Lash. I have no clue how you got from my question

Quote:

How do you, as a citizen of a democracy, make sure that these things are prosecuted and not covered up?

to your statement

Quote:

If you LOL--Good grief--are arguing that we need to allow the free flowing dissemination of kiddie porn in order to have ammo and addys to prosecute it

No. Clue.

But you finally asked the right question:

Quote:

What are the names of child pornographers?

See? We're getting somewhere. I want to know that, too. Maybe there aren't any. Hopefully. On the other hand, we have some witnesses who state something else, and we have possibly pictures of those guilty.

Now, again, my question:

How do you, as a citizen of a democracy, make sure that these things are prosecuted and not covered up? By your government, I might add...

0 Replies

Baldimo,

the official investigation into the torture and abuse scandal last year found that there had been "approximately 300 recorded cases of alleged abuse in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and Iraq." Now, how many people have been put to trial?

And, as of last year, we know that the the administration had sanctioned interrogation techniques that violated the UN Convention against Torture and that the President had stated in a central policy memo that, although the USA's values "call for us to treat detainees humanely", there are some "who are not legally entitled to such treatment". The documents discussed, among other things, ways in which US agents could avoid the international prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Of course, the military investigation did not have the power to carry the investigation into the highest levels of government. Why would that be the case, if the military judicial system was just a mirror of the civilian counterpart?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Baldimo,

the official investigation into the torture and abuse scandal last year found that there had been "approximately 300 recorded cases of alleged abuse in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and Iraq." Now, how many people have been put to trial?

And, as of last year, we know that the the administration had sanctioned interrogation techniques that violated the UN Convention against Torture and that the President had stated in a central policy memo that, although the USA's values "call for us to treat detainees humanely", there are some "who are not legally entitled to such treatment". The documents discussed, among other things, ways in which US agents could avoid the international prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Of course, the military investigation did not have the power to carry the investigation into the highest levels of government. Why would that be the case, if the military judicial system was just a mirror of the civilian counterpart?

If you were referring to a trial of civilian leadership of the military then they would be placed under trial by a civilian court only after the Senate determines there has been a crime. Military courts are only in place for trials of US military personal.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

If you were referring to a trial of civilian leadership of the military then they would be placed under trial by a civilian court only after the Senate determines there has been a crime. Military courts are only in place for trials of US military personal.

Exactly. See, that's where we have the problem. The military won't or can't prosecute these things, and the civilian leadership doesn't seem to be inclined to hand over the evidence that might point to a crime or would enable the Senate to determine whether there has been a crime.

Hence the court order via FIOA. Makes all sense now, doesn't it?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
If you were referring to a trial of civilian leadership of the military then they would be placed under trial by a civilian court only after the Senate determines there has been a crime. Military courts are only in place for trials of US military personal.

Exactly. See, that's where we have the problem. The military won't or can't prosecute these things, and the civilian leadership doesn't seem to be inclined to hand over the evidence that might point to a crime or would enable the Senate to determine whether there has been a crime.

Hence the court order via FIOA. Makes all sense now, doesn't it?

Not really. The people who need to see the evidence already have the evidence. They are refusing to hand over evidence to people who have no bearing on the matter. There are people on this site who demand that the pics and videos be handed over the reporters or other such groups. I agree with the admin on this, these people have no reason to see those pics except to pass some sort of judgment.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

The people who need to see the evidence already have the evidence.

Beg your pardon, Baldimo, but this seems to be quite vague. Who has seen the evidence? Who is investigating the involvement of superiors? Who is investigating the fact that the had sanctioned torture?

You know, after all the documents made public last year, it would be nice to see a democracy at work, and maybe even somebody at least investigating the matter.

What I don't understand is how you can argue that the soldiers at the site should be punished, while those issuing the directives should not even be investigated....

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

I agree with the admin on this, these people have no reason to see those pics except to pass some sort of judgment.

Oh, and I wanted to address this, too. I basically agree with this statement. But it would be very easy to find a modus operandi in order to make these pictures public without publishing them.

The administration could, for example, hand the material over to an organization like the ICRC (as they seem to have a problem with, for example, a UN organization). I doubt that the ICRC would actually email those pictures to CNN or the tabloids, and yet this pitiful drama could be easily resolved.

Unless there is something to cover up.

(Oh, by the way: allowing the ICRC back into all detention facilities would help, too...)

0 Replies

OE--

I wasn't speaking in euphemisms. You're trying unsuccessfully to manipulate an porn analogy to support your Gitmo opinion.

You're wrong both ways.

0 Replies

Lash,

Nice one-liner. Where did I manipulate your porn analogy?

0 Replies

I always thought porn was "manipulation." LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I always thought porn was "manipulation." LOL

Only when you are home alone! Laughing

0 Replies

You know I just honestly don't understand this argument that showing the pictures of the abused women and children to the American people is peddling porn that will cause more killing by the terrorist.

One reason is that we show pictures of 9/11 which has caused backlashes to the American Muslim community. We show the bombings in London which causes a backlash to the British Muslim community.

I am not saying that we shouldn't show the pictures. Those events took place and they should be shown regardless of what others do. The truth should be told.

The same is true for the pictures that we have not yet seen that shed a different light on the abuse scandal that so far has been made out to be a romp on a Saturday night. Other than internet junkies who search out and read all these details, most of the American pubic are not really aware that there more to prison abuse scandal.

The reason it is important to know is so that the American people can base judgments on the extent of the abuse on all the facts rather than have talking conservative pundits tell them that it was all harmless pranks. Even on this thread some here were saying "what are going to see, more women's underwear on prisoner's heads".

If we are seen as covering up then people around the world who are not blindly patriotic will think there is something to hide and that will not be good for when we are dealing with other nations on issues where we got to have alliances. It is better to completely transparent and to be seen as trying to correct the problem rather than keeping it hid.

0 Replies

Have you forgotten the reaction to the Newsweek article describing alleged events? Why does the left think there would be no negative reaction from the Muslim world if we release further pictures of the crimes from Abu Ghraib?

0 Replies

Time to put up or shut up; Upd: Coverup Continues

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know