Sodomizing children, in the name of freedom.

rayban1 wrote:

Your lesson in Christianity is almost blasphemous Walter. I got the impression you had abandoned Christianity in favor of Socialism.

Could you please - and I'm serious - try to explain, why I can't be a Christian and a socialist?

Did you ever hear of worker's priests, like e.g. Don Bosco?
Besides, I think, more than 90% of our local (town and county) party members are either Evangelicals or Catholics, a little bit less on state level.

(Blair, btw, is a Christian, too, his wife Catholic, he an Anglican. Schröder is an Evangelical.)

Just for clarification, this is from Wikipedia and I won't mention it again on this thread:

Socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Socialism is a term with conflicting definitions. Among liberals in the USA and Social Democrats througout western Europe it generally denotes an utopia where the view that the state is responsible for effecting an even or more equitable distribution of wealth and for taking control all or some of the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy. It is seen as a successor to capitalism, as both an economy and an ideology.

Why do you insist that only you have the clear picture of everyting....do you come by this superiority complex naturally or is there some divine guidence?

rayban1 wrote:

Why do you insist that only you have the clear picture of everyting....do you come by this superiority complex naturally or is there some divine guidence?

Since didn't answer my question about your reasons to call me unfair, I sincerely doubt that you will answer now the one, where I insisted to have a clear picture of everything.


Did you ever try different glasses to the ones you actually use?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You are the expert at ...SELECTIVE READING

Well, during my life - and espeically during my academic life, I was told exactly different.

rayban1 wrote:

.you also are an expert at using your translation difficulties of the English language as a crutch when you purposely don't want to acknowledge another point of view.

Hmm, exactly where did I show/use these translation difficulties? (Okay, you wont answer, I could translate that.)

I'm very tired of your drivel and won't respond again.

I can't; they won't release the pictures.

Remember that the origional batch of photos numbered in the thousands and there were several videos.

Remember that Eight people were charged? There's no way just 8 people were responsible.

And none of the higher ups who approved of this were charged. So those responsible have NOT been brought to justice.

Learn the facts...

Cycloptichorn

Mr. Justice MURPHY, dissenting.

The significance of the issue facing the Court today cannot be overemphasized. An American military commission has been established to try a fallen military commander of a conquered nation for an alleged war crime. The authority for such action grows out of the exercise of the power conferred upon Congress by Article I, 8, Cl. 10 of the Constitution to 'define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations ....' The grave issue raised by this case is whether a military commission so established and so authorized may disregard the procedural rights of an accused person as guaranteed by the Constitution, especially by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The answer is plain. The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law applies to 'any person' who is accused of a crime by the Federal Government or any of its agencies. No exception is made as to those who are accused of war crimes or as to those who possess the status of an enemy belligerent. Indeed, such an exception would be contrary to the whole philosophy of human rights which makes the Constitution the great living document that it is. The immutable rights of the individual, including those secured by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, belong not alone to the members of those nations that excel on the battlefield or that subscribe to the democratic ideology. They belong to every person in the world, victor or vanquished, whatever may be his race, color or beliefs. They rise above any status of belligerency or outlawry. They survive any popular passion or frenzy of the moment. No court or legislature or executive, not even the mightiest [327 U.S. 1, 27] army in the world, can ever destroy them. Such is the universal and indestructible nature of the rights which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment recognizes and protects when life or liberty is threatened by virtue of the authority of the United States.

The existence of these rights, unfortunately, is not always respected. They are often trampled under by those who are motivated by hatred, aggression or fear. But in this nation individual rights are recognized and protected, at least in regard to governmental action. They cannot be ignored by any branch of the Government, even the military, except under the most extreme and urgent circumstances.

The failure of the military commission to obey the dictates of the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment is apparent in this case. The petitioner was the commander of an army totally destroyed by the superior power of this nation. While under heavy and destructive attack by our forces, his troops committed many brutal atrocities and other high crimes. Hostilities ceased and he voluntarily surrendered. At that point he was entitled, as an individual protected by the due process clause of the Fifth amendment, to be treated fairly and justly according to the accepted rules of law and procedure. He was also entitled to a fair trial as to any alleged crimes and to be free from charges of legally unrecognized crimes that would serve only to permit his accusers to satisfy their desires for revenge.

A military commission was appointed to try the petitioner for an alleged war crime. The trial was ordered to be held in territory over which the United States has complete sovereignty. No miilitary necessity or other emergency demanded the suspension of the safeguards of due process. Yet petitioner was rushed to trial under an improper charge, given insufficient time to prepare an adequate defense, deprived of the benefits of some of the most [327 U.S. 1, 28] elementary rules of evidence and summarily sentenced to be hanged. In all this needless and unseemly haste there was no serious attempt to charge or to prove that he committed a recognized violation of the laws of war. He was not charged with personally participating in the acts of atrocity or with ordering or condoning their commission. Not even knowledge of these crimes was attributed to him. It was simply alleged that he unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as commander to control the operations of the members of his command, permitting them to commit the acts of atrocity. The recorded annals of warfare and the established principles of international law afford not the slightest precedent for such a charge. This indictment in effect permitted the military commission to make the crime whatever it willed, dependent upon its biased view as to petitioner's duties and his disregard thereof, a practice reminiscent of that pursued in certain less respected nations in recent years.

In my opinion, such a procedure is unworthy of the traditions of our people or of the immense sacrifices that they have made to advance the common ideals of mankind. The high feelings of the moment doubtless will be satisfied. But in the sober afterglow will come the realization of the boundless and dangerous implications of the procedure sanctioned today. No one in a position of command in an army, from sergeant to general, can escape those future Indeed, the fate of some future President of the United States and his chiefs of staff and military advisers may well have been sealed by this decision. . . .

Reports on maltreated children in the torture prison

[..] Sometimes, in the course of such raids, the soldiers also arrest children. What happens to these children?

[..] One who knows something about it is Sergeant Samuel Provance from the US Army's secret service. He was stationed for half a year in the notorious torture prison Abu Ghraib. Today, five months later, we meet Sergeant Provance in Heidelberg. [..] He tells us about a 16-year old boy he had to take away himself.

Samuel Provance, US Sergeant:

"He was terribly afraid. He had the skinniest arms I've ever seen. He was trembling all over. His wrists were so thin that we couldn't even put handcuffs on him. Right when I saw him for the first time, and took him for interrogation, I felt sorry for him. The interrogation specialists poured water over him and put him into a car. Then they drove with him through the night, and at that time it was very, very cold. Then they smeared him with mud and showed him to his father who was also in custody. [..]

But Provance also reports of a special department, specifically for children. A secret children's section in the horror prison Abu Ghraib.

One person who has seen the children's wing with his own eyes is the journalist Suhaib Badr-Addin Al-Baz. Our correspondent met him last week in Baghdad. The Iraqi TV reporter tells how he himself was arrested arbitrarily by the Americans while shooting a film and spent 74 days in Abu Ghraib.

Suhaib Badr-Addin Al-Baz, TV reporter:

"I saw a camp for children there. Boys, under the age of puberty. There were certainly hundreds of children in this camp. Some have been released, others are certainly still there."

From his single cell in the adults' section, Suhaib heard a perhaps 12-year-old girl crying. Suhaib learned that her brother was being held on the second floor of the prison. Suhaib says he saw her there himself once or twice. [..]

"She was beaten. I heard her call out: They have undressed me. They have poured water over me."

Daily, says Suhaib, one had heard her cries and her whimpering. Some of the prisoners had therefore wept. Suhaib also reports about a sick 15-year-old boy. They had hounded him up and down the corridor with heavy water canisters. So long until he had collapsed with exhaustion, says Suhaib. Then they had brought his father, captive. With a hood over his head. The boy had collapsed again with shock.

[..] We research for further evidence for the imprisonment of children. And indeed. UNICEF in Geneva, the United Nations' relief agency for children [wrote:] "Children who had been arrested in Basra and Kerbala (…) were handed over as a matter of routine to an internment facility in Um Qasr".

The internment camp Um Qasr [..] a prison camp for terrorists and criminals. Here of all places, the Americans are thus said to have kept children interned like prisoners of war.

UNICEF writes:

"The classification of these children as 'Internees' is worrying as it means an indefinite period of custody, without contact with their families, expectation of proceedings or a trial." [..]

Florian Westphal, International Committee of the Read Cross:

"Between January and May of this year, we registered a total of 107 children. Namely during 19 visits to 6 different places of detention. [..]"

Two international organisations thus confirm to us independently of one another that the occupation troops are holding Iraqi children in custody. But we do not get any information directly from the prisons. Not even UNICEF was allowed to visit the children's clink in Baghdad. [..] According to UNICEF, no independent observers at all have been in the children's clink any more since December. [..]

We stress: Four sources confirm independently of one another that the occupation troops are holding children as prisoners. Two witnesses even report of maltreatment. [..]

Can we for once leave the discussion about socialism aside and try to get our co-posters to address the actual revelations? Too much evasion and distraction goin' on as it is already.